The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1860-02-07

THAT VoTE-We stated two weeks ago that
Mr. Gilmer voted for Schwartz and that Schwartz
voted for Sherman The Fayetteville Observer
denied the charge and called upon US to prove it
or retract. We had prepared an article sustaining
our statement, when we received the Observer
containing the following which we copy for two
reasons, first, to show that were right, and I'd,
to give Mr. Gilmer the benefit of his explanation.
Here is what the Observer says:
Mr. GHMER.-A week ago denied statement
made by the Charlotte Democrat. that Mr. Gilmcr had
voted for a Mr. Schwartz for Speaker-Schwartz, who
voted, it is said, for Sherman. We had scanned
the they occurred with and had seen
such by Mr. Gimer Wehad every separate vote but
three before US, and there was no such vote We felt
justified therefore IN calling upon the Democrat TO re-
tract make good its assertion. But we also wrote
to Mr. Gmer for the papers containing the three mis-
sing votes In sending them to US, and in fully con-
frming our statement based the official record
he makes a statement so crcditable to himselfas
honest man, and different from the usual course of
public men. that give as contt"g from nm state
Of facts which cannot be found on that record.
As the Democrat stated, Mr. Schwartz elected
anti Lecompton Democrat and has voted and votes for
the Black Republican candidate But early in the ses
sion Mr. Schwartz voted for Mr. Gilmer, having previous
" voted only for anti-LecomptOn Democrats. Mr. Gil
mer, suppOsing him to be national man from his
votes, returned the compliment by mere compliment
airy vote o the next ballot When Schwartz's name
was called he voted, the time, FOR Sherman
and consequence of that Mr. Gmer and changed
his vote from Schwartz to of his party. When
the announced Mr. Gmer announced as
so voting for a member of his party: he is
corded and we were right in statement. Had the
Democrats informant been anxious to state things
fairly As TO lure Mr. Gilmer, think know enough
of friends of the Democrat to know that they would
have charged Mr. Gilmer with voting for Schwartz
echo Uoted for StcrmdR.'
Now, We can't understand how our friends of
the Observer can still claim that we were wrong
and they were right, while Mr. Gilmer himself &C
knowledges that he voted as we charged, though
he afterwards changed. We are willing to take
Mr. Gilmer's explanation of the manner in which
the vote was given and withdrawn from Schwartz
but we must remark that there is another version
of the affair, given by Washington newspaper cor
respondents at the time and not then denied, which
is in this wise: Mr. Gilmer voted for Schwartz
whcrcupon Mr. Vance, of this State, who had been
voting for Gilmer, refused to do so upon that bal
lot-Mr Gilmer observing that Vance was dis
pleased, changed his vote from Schwartz to Briggs
or Etheridge before the vote was announced; then
Mr. Vance changed his vote back to Gimer This
is the substance Of the statement of the affair
saw published soon after it occurred. Mr. G. gives
different reason for changing his vote, and We
give him the benefit of his excuse; but we contend
that the fact is stated it, viz: that he did vote
for Schwartz; and we learn he did not change that
vote until Vance had rebuked him by voting for
one else.