Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1859-12-02

AT the Congressional election. in the Fourth
District
i ssi P:; B:y: ss 1888 Ma. .s... :: :s' sss
iss Davis loo7s lla,r';Sn % s11s 1sSs
ular democrat, made vigorous canvass, had Just
before represented tho District, had brought out
oil his party strength.
Mr. Brooks had been whie, had only recently
joined the Democratic party, was not widely
known or influential, was nominated on the evo
Of the election. and made no canvass beyond pub
fishing letter. Tho vote itself is the just result
of that state OF facts-a less aggregate. larger
majority.
Mr. Brooks contested tho election on the exact
grounds now urged, but abandoned his case.
Mr.. Pinkney Whyte contested Mr., Harris cleo
ton from the Sd District, at tho same time. on tho
same grounds.thc Sd District being In the eastern
part Of the city--more than n thousand printed
pages Of testimony were taken-and tho House Of
Representatives, having % Democratic majority,
and In which Mr.. Harris had only IL bakers dozen
of political friends, laid tho case the table and
refused even to hear Mr.. Whytes argument Of his
ease 1t hardly lies in tho mouths Of Democrats to
impcach either of these elections.
At the election of 1859, in tho 4th District, tho
same results appear. There was no domocratlc
nomination Mt all. Mr.. Harrison WAS democrat
but was invited to b come m independent candi-
date, by II few gentlemen, soma two weeks only
before the election, made no canvass, was strong
among the merchants. but hated by large bodies Of
the mechanics, owing To occurrences during tho
strike in tho winter. while the President of tho
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. and his defeat was
perfectly certain from tho day of his nomination.
just ns these circumstances would lead IN to OK.
pcct thc aggregate vote in tho District was ,642
less than in 1857, Just as that was 0S7 loss thnn
the vote of 1853. Mr. Davis. vote is 4i2 less than
in 1857 and Mr. lIarrison's vote ia 200 less thnn
Mr.. Brooks. The Wecker.a German Paper,
states that large number of Germans voted for
Mc+srs. Davis aud Harris, because to the fres
trade principles of Mrssrs Harrison and Preston.
The hypothesis Of exclusion in the fnoe Of these
facts seem Iuiie needless to account Tor tho
phenomena.
These figures tell their own tale The aggrc
cato vote Of the city has not varied more than
about 1000 in four holly contested eeelions, State
and National? Has our vote in New York over
been so steady? The aggregate vote of the Amer
enn party has regularly and gradually progressed.
Is not that reasonable?
As the asccndancy Of the American party be
cnme better established. the vote Of their oppo-
nents necessarily decreased, and what remaino !
Of it. aware Of the fruitlessness Of arontest, was
less AMI less inclined to assume the expense I'm !
lnbors OF active canvass, aud felt less interest
III casting useless ballot.
At the election # 1907, ~ fcrcely assnilolthe
Democrats did not think it worth whilo to make "
single nomination Tor the city. Did they thlnk
they had ma iority?
Why should the Americans exclude votes when
their own vute is clear twothirds or tbfee-inurths
# the whole vote of the District, cast repeated,
and known 10 exist by its opponents?
Is not the assertion Il the Reformrrs TINT they
have 10000 majority in the city. which cannot
fin,l II voice, too absurd for refutnton
Then observe the remarkable uniformity in the
aggregate vote Of the city ut State and National
I,nl ltI x,.rvh hxn tl.,
ss Of either extraordinary violence on extraorLina'
" fraud