The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1865-11-30


nection that one or the other of these
gentlemen will be the most available
Union candidate for the next Speaker
of the House.
Our talented young friend, w. p.
Hubbard, Esq, present Clerk of the
House, comes in for a friendly mention
as prospective candidate for Clerk of
the next House.
The Late Elections I'm this stnte.-.Bad
Faith and worse Conduct or the
Rebels.
The misstatements of the few conner
head prints in the State respecting the
late election, particularly in the ninth
and tenth judicial circuits, are so gross,
and their assurance is so brazen, that we
feel constrained to notice some of their
allegations about the "outrages" perpe-
trated on their friends, the returned
rebels. II we could believe the Kana-
wha Republican, Martinsburg Ne1V Era,
or ChnrlestOwn Free Press, the Kan
sns election frauds, once considered
the most infamous on record, have been
more than parnlleled by the loyal au-
thorities in the recent election.
Lest any one should be deceived by
all this bluster, aud led to suppose that
there is even partial reason for 1t, we
desire to submit n few facts. Complaint
is especially made of the action of the
boards of supervisors in the counties of
Hardy, Morgan and Jefferson; and we
believe on the strength of it Mr.. Ken
ncdy has given Judge Hall notice of an
intention TO contest his election, and
Mr.. Downey has given Mr.. Chapline IA
similar notice OF contest in the Senate.
In reference TO the result in Hardy
county, the facts are these: The cleo
ton was the first held since the rebel
lion. Commissioners appointed and
authorized by act of July 81, 1863, APP
pointed the supervisor and inspectors
for each of the twelve precincts of the
county. OF these eleven precincts held
elections. The supervisors thus ap-
pointed and holding the elections, con-
stituted, by virtue of section "a of the
general election law, board on whom
devolved all the duties respecting the
returns of the election that devolve on
duly elected board of supervisors
where there is one. As authorized by
law, IA majority of this bonrd met to ex-
amino the returns and "ascertain the
true result" of the election. At four
precincts they decided that every re-
qIirement of law had been complied
with in holding the elections and max
ing returns. At the fifth they found
TINT though the officers had been prop
erly qualified and the election regular
ly held, the certificate and tallies were
wrong, inasmuch as the rejected votes
li2l had been counted ns well as the le-
gal votes lli.l The board therefore
thrcw out these rejected votes and count
ed the legal ones. Attic sixth precinct,
the returns were rejected for the reason
that they showed on their face that the
election was not held according to law
the supervisor and inspectors refusing
to sign the certificate that 1t had been so
held, and alleging as their reason that
they wero interrupted by threats and
violence in the discharge of their duties.
The election at the seventh precinct was
set aside because the oaths of the officers
were not subscribed by them nor the
certificate of the result signed. The
elections mt the other four precincts
We're set aside because the persons soon.
Quoting them had not taken the oaths of
office.
Now, i'll reference to these "outrages"
it is sufficient TO remark: Boards ofSu-
pcrvisOrs are required to ascertain "the
true result" of elections certified to
them. No profcssed return can be re-
ceived by them as part of the result, If
il ia not supported by the evidence,
which the law requires to show that il
is the genuine return of real election,
To constitute a real election, nil the OIL
cersengaged in conducting il must first
take the Oaths required by law of all Of
ficers; and the evidence that such cleo
ton has been held is, first, the evidence
that the conductors were authorized to
hold it, and, second, their certificate
TINT they did so hold it. In the case of
the first four precincts, mentioned, both
branches ofovidencc were furnished the
board, andthe results appearing correct
were accepted. In the case of the fifth
the evidence was the same, but the re-
suit appearing on its fi,ce erroneousNyas
corrected, under authority conferred by
section 81. ofthe Electionllaw. In tie
Ease of the sixth precinct, there was ev-
dence that persons We're authorized to
hold an election, but none that they did
so. In the case of the seventh, there
was no evidence of either; and in the
other four no evidence of authority to
hold elections.
The Board, therefore, simply did their
exact duty in every case.
In Jefferson, we are informed, the
Board of Supervisors rejected the return
orCharlestown precinct because the evil |
dence before them showed the election
was not held according to law-the cleo
ton law OF last February having been
utterly disregNrded; persons being al
lowed to vote not only in violation of
that law, but in violation of the general
provision requiring residence Of ono
year in the State.
Tho same state of facts eNis,a5 -
Morgan county Mt several preciro,s
and the returns from them were i'm con.
sequence rejected by the supervisors
We believe, too, in Morgan, some of the
conductors failed to qualify. We oro
not sure, also, that this, was no, the
case ut Charleston. Whether this last
was true or not, in either county. me
total disregard of so positive law as
that of February last, must unques-
tionably invalidate these elections If