Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1864-12-30

-
quoted. We are citing them in regular
order, as the writer himself has arranged
them: r.
ga special meeting of the Council was
held, on the oath Of January, to declare
what was really the spirit and meaning OF
the ordinance. At this meeting, soldiers
ballots were mentioned for the first tme.
Mr.. Sweeney distinctly stated that ne WRs
in favor oftalloWing soldiers to Vote, DIs
that the existing charter OF me cry u,.ass
| ded for the appointment OF commas ~. .,
"a ennarintend the elections and tnat
las oI,viously too late TO send such COM
r,issioners TO the various camps to receive
che soIdiers' vote, 1.-THE 26th being election
d. He was therefore in favor OF sns-
1s1din0 the operation of the Fifth section
| IF the Ordinance with relation to the man
| ner of voting, in go far as the pending cleo
ton was concerned provided that an oral
nance should be properly prepared IN
reference to future city elections nAklng
| the State law applicable in all its proVl-
sions-soldiers' votes among the rest"
| The fret thing We desire to call atten-
ton to in connection with this paragraph
ID the fact that the writer, after having
declared In a previous paragraph that the
Fifth section related only to the mode of
voting by ballot and on white paper, now,
in the above paragraph, comes out and
represents Mr.. Sweeney as admitting that
the section carried with it a recognition
of the soldiers right to vote, but that as
"the existing charter of the city provided
for the appointment ofOommissioners tosu-
perinteud the Elections, and that as it was
obviously too late to send such Commits
sioners, he was therefore in favor of sus.
pending the operation of the 9th section"
&c. But the contradiction involved in what
he thus Gays is not its most notable feature
by any means, absurd, stupid and laugh
able as it is. The brilliant point is in rep
reseuting Mr.. Sweeney as claiming that
"the existing charter of the city provided
for the appointment of Commissioners"
whose duty it was to go the camps and col
leet votes. Pray in what section of the
charter of the city is such provision
to be found2 We shonld~like to know
tits difficult to conceive of a man setting
down to write on subject about which
he has not the first clear idea in his mind,
nor yet one single piece of informstion
relating thereto of which he is master.
The writer in the RICHTER does not seem to
have been able to understand anything
told him by Mr.. Sweeney. He writes like
a man who had NO conception whatever
either of the facts of his case or of the logi-
cal relation of his different assertions in
his different paragraphs. AS final speci-
men of the disjointed and ineoherent style
of his whole article, witness the following
further quotation:
Mr.. Sweeney did not vote to "probibit
soldiers from the exercise of the elective
franchise to which they were entitled under
the laws of the State" for, under the State
law they were not entitled to vote at mu.-
nicipal elections.
a little way back in our quotations Mr..
Sweeny is represented by the writer in the
Register as apologizing for the repeal of
Section 5th, on the ground that Commits
sioners could not be sent out to the camps
to collect the votes of the soldiers in &C.
cordsncs with ''the existing charter of the
city" In the above paragraph he tells Us
that Mr.. Sweeny did not vote to take away
their elective franchise for they had none
under the law. How then came that pro.
vision Gin the existing charter of the city"
to send Commissioners: out to take their
votes in the camps2 A very superauOus
proceeding on the part of the Commits
sioners we should say if the soldiers had
no right under the law to vote. 30 e.
But passing over the stupidity of the
Register writer in thus contradicting him
self all through his article, and treating
the paragraph just quoted in sober earnest
we say TO him that Mr. sweeny did take
away the right of the soldiers to vote by
the very act of his repeal of section 9th,
which, as we showed in the outse: of our
remarks, provided uuequivocally that "aLl
the provisions of the laws of this State
shall be held to be applicable to all cleo
tious within the limits of the CITY," Neither
Mr.. Sweeney nor his laundering apologisl
in the Register can deny that under
the laws of the State our soldiers
were entitled to vote at all elections
outside of the city-that ia, at all
StateI County auu IO"HshiP 0A9S'iOHs' auu
so neither can they deny that the 9Th Sec
ton gave them the same rights at our
municipal elections; for the very provisions
of the Election law emitting them thus to
vote at all other elections in the State
were stated by the 9th section "to. be sp-
plicable to all elections within the limits oil
the city" 4 -
Mr.. Sweeney knew that as long as the
9th section stood unrepealed the soldiers
had an uuquestiouable right to vote. Hence
he hOlpSd to accomplish its repeal, with
the sole purpose of excluding the votes Of
our soldiers from the polls.