Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1863-09-17
From the Wisconsin State Journal.
4 BaSeless Charge of " Fraud"

| We think it is time that the cry of - fraud
with regard to the nominations of the Union
| Convention, particularly that for Governor,
| whether raised by atrabiliar American editors
| to point their denunciations of what they
claim TO be the all-powerful Madison re-
gency." or by those Germans who have let
| their feelings OF nationality run away with
| their reason, or by Copperhead editors who
are to be expected to lie and to secure belief
| for their lies if they can-should be stopped,
being as it is utterly without foundation, most
unjust to the worthy nominee for Governor,
and a SANDER on the Union Convention.
Mr.. LEWIS was nominated for Governor by
| twenty-three majority on ballot which no
one will pretend was unfair and it would
make no difference if there had been forty
| fraudulent ballots previously, as long as the
| nomination did not rest on any of them. On
the second ballot according to the count of
the Secretaries, there were three or four ex-
ira votes cast. The Secretaries may have
erred in keeping the tally. 1t was maintained
by some that they did. The vote for Gov
SALoMoN remained the same as it was on the
first ballot but that does not prove anything
as was claimed by some, inasmuch as it was
known there were changes from SALoMoN to
LEWIS, as there were probably also in the op-
posite direction. Two of the extra votes we
heard accounted for the same evening as
having been given in entire innocence-the
one by SALoMoN man, who was preoecupied
in conversation and voted second time with
out thinking of it till afterwards-the other
by LEWIS man, who cast the vote of his col
league supposing him absent, though he subse-
quently voted. There was no fraud about this on
either side, but if the friends of Mr.. LEWIS had
insisted that he be declared the nominee be-
cause he had one majority on this ballot
| there would have been some ground for COM
| plant. Such however, was not the case
| There was no charge of fraud, or suspicion of
| fraud expressed, at the time the result of the
second ballot was announced. The secretaries
| were not even asked to count the ballots to
| ascertain whether or not they correspondent
with their tallies The charge of fraud was
an after-thought. 1t was raised first by Dem
| ocrats. The only circumstance which gave
the slightest color Of plausibility to it was the
| correspondence of the vote for Governor SAL
| ONION, with his vote on the previous ballot
| This was purely accidental, since it is certain
| that some delegates who voted for SALOMoN
on the first ballot, voted for lewis on
| the second and others who had voted for
| LEWIS, changed to SALoMoN. The names of
| several who thus changed their votes have
flute all presumption of fraud founded on the
identity of the vote in numbers, cast for Gov.
| S. on the first and second ballots.
| The Convention adjourned for supper, a
number of the delegates having voted and
| left for their hotels before the result of the
ballot was announced During the intermis-
sion of the adjournment the friends of the
| two candidates were equally busy. The
friends OF Judge LEWIS believed that their
candidate would poll larger vote in the State
than his opponent That was their argument.
In general, as far as we can learn, they spoke
of Gov. SALoMoN with the highest respect
and promptly conceded his efficient and faith
full services as the Executive of the State.
After hearing the arguments of both sides,
| it seems that some who had previously voted
for Gov. SALoMON's nomination, became per-
suaded that under all the circumstances Judge
LEWIS was the stronger candidate of the two,
and equally entitled to their respect and con-
fdence. He was accordingly nominated and,
as fairly nominated as any man that was ever
presented as a candidate by any convention
| in the State of Wisconsin.