New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-01-24

penmehfs which he had SO frequently uttered pub
ne ayot man or one dollar will Kentucky furnish lin
coin 10 aid him In his ,nh0iy rdr GGdu'Ss me Soum III
tins Northern army shall attempt to cross our border IRE
trI resist unto death and IL one man shal De found IN
cur Commonwealth to volunteer to Join them he ought
and believe viii be shot doc before ne eqrss me STATE
In is worthy Of note that the card pears uae May 49,
1861 and this letter was published In nc LOUISVILLE Cou
re on the 18TH two days after and although the news
papers Of the 18th which contain the caru anu whose no
tees OF it he has asked to read the opinion
that he would be chosen by accanao, 2 ge aler the
publications days later of this letter IN Ihe LonsrHc
Courier. avowed secession paper 70 WHOSE editors IL
was addressed, Mr. Brown disappeared aogetner from
the canvass and another chosen as INC ohon cand
| date TO succeed him in Congress.
sideration in this connection Mr. Brown himself so far
IA shown till the hearing before INC IonIntee
mt upon this letter the construction now camed TOT H.
As late as during the for the seat now claimed
in April last. it was publicly charged upon mn as ifea
can learn did he disavow the plain import of the words
or claim them other Interpretation, Du1 on lDe
Uuon bs that the letter still expressed his
sentiments The Committee have not Deen aDle 10 ma
M R 1 at the time or since evidence that leads
tends 10 any other conclusion than that the ie9r was
| promise OF IMMUNITY to those who would support inc
Rebel cause and death to those who espoused
the cause of the Union Unfortunately the very evidence
offered in excupatiOn, and which Is here been
on strenetens that conclusion 1t only remains to IN
oure whether the letter. with this manifest htefprea.
announcement to persons engaged in armed hostility TO
the United sates' And this seems so pam as haru 10
justify argument But the Commute wop thev failed
of duty in presenting this whole case. tey ,si v
| IN 10
and the circumstances to which u apphe' luz d Nh
bears date April 1861 and addressed 10 anu pD
ished IN paper openly adv9caTg war uUn -" Of Louis
VILE. Sumter had not been fired upon six uty peIV
President Lincoln had called upon 'n mt down the
the states for 5000 volunteers TO puS S uo rsned
Rebellion Gov. Magofin OF KENTUCKY han Iepiotu
say emphatcally Kentucky will furnish no troops iOa
this Wicked purpose OF subduing her sister Southern
States" The nation had been aroused Inc pa.roadp
and the appeal had summoned every man 10 MS I M
In Kentucky there doubt and uncertainty; IsI S
har lauf IN
was excited and sensitive In the extreme anu lhe S'
of her people were wayering Under thG p ne
OF her young and popular orators. gifted ana M
returned from the halls OF Congress- ana aoi hs s
same language with which her Governor ad huiou paA
his reasonable response TO President ncons plorhh
nIh ,,n ~ that Not One man or one dollar will
Kentucky furnish Lincoln to ana MN III us ui ae%S
IN cross our borders will resist 1t unto death hu
one man shall be found in our Commonwealth 10 Voun
| tecr to Join them. he ought. ana pe"o'o VIM " '
| down before he leaves the state - A., .od ,,ro,
How much OF the blood that subsequently ho"eu upV
the soil OF Kentucky justly attributable 10 these sc'
monts then uttered will never be known i' u "a "a
pledge OF IMMUNITY for murder, II sunuiaIu si5 l c
The blood OF Union soldiers ana theh ioio"eu vi
cot crimes. not against country alone but aEhS, AZ,
~, IN manner and form herein forth has con-
rbuted these terrible results. ana thit lheIi
'yolunary given aid countenhee Los , ~ he
United states he il entitled to take the oath 81 once
or To be admitted to this House as Representative from
tut ''''0 sAMrEL =. SMITH.
he lu IN %
ALLEGED minority of votes for Representative III Con
eres The vote the election here contested was as
! follows:
For Mr. smith .....--.-.-. 90 t'otn
For Mr. H. &. Killer. -'i''''
The majority for Mr. Brown Mr. smith was there
Mr. smith rests his claim to tho seat solely upon what
he alleges as gal result following from the conclusions
~ ,h,ch the committee have arrived. that Mr.. Brown
who did receive majority OF the votes Is not eht,ra 20
| - Of
ceiycd the M CHEST number OF votes is lhcgDle anu ''
inrgbi,Ity Mas known to those who voted Tor him be-
orr casting their votes that those votes thus cast lor
him arr. To thrown away ANA treated az u never cas''
and consequently the minority candidate would DC
Elected I'm support OF this claim he calls the attention OF
the Committee to large number OF cases III te IN
ment and Courts Of Great Britain Sustaining TINS doc
trine and upon its application TO the case 10" u
ut ,nnliice arc not disposed conrovert the eKis
encc the authorities clted but are cd 70 indure
far they furnish binding or wise RUE lor 'ho bo''
Bmt before entering upon this inquiry I, Is proper to
The ppcaon OF the English rule. invoked by Mr. smith
the fncts In the CASE give inc s,a 70 i ,bo foct
that the voter had knowledge OF the nenS'phS o MS
! candidate De fore casting his vote FOR him. ,,,
Teywood on County Elections. page 49, says II pc
fore The election comes minority has polei SUI
cient notice has been publicly gwen Of his disability,
the candidate next Ia him on the pol must
ultimately be the sitting member go, 49, ,.,. f.,
Hale on Elections page $50. sayg; II an election Is
made Of a person or persons ineligible, such election IS
void when neligbnity IS clear ana pointed on 10
Es 10 Fast DO lord EllcnDourough says that such is
tbc Iw i'm England after notice OF lgbility" In
aa Of aInion. Therefore Inst he die infant in
eligible and due notice Of his incapaey having Deen
gwen the electors at the time OF the election ther
votes were given away" Clark on Election committees
is equally explicit page 5G " Ncnever cahditor Is
DISQUALIFIED from sitting In Parliament ana notice thetot
Is publicly given 10 the electors, al votes gwen 10 sueh
disqualified candidate VIII be eGnsipeTsd a. tn,own
away" And the last two cases III the BIlt'n fntucuV
in isis-werc decided, one In conformity to tins rne
and the other against IT, because IN the one the Commit
deemed the notice sufficient ana III ms the ONE
defective eec printed minutes l8io( indeed; tne req
son OF The rule Itself, laid down by Mr. HM"ooi'
whose work has already been cltcu VIZ lhat - VIZ.
fui obsnacY misconduct I'm voter to give us vote
war Elections page 500 requires notice Tor It cannot be
'willful obstinacy and misconduct" without notice
Parliament required this notice to be exceedingly Tor
mail almost every instance at the polls so that the
voter who, by this theory, was himself committing
the act al crimes committed, with AN Intention TO
commit the o6enses, then the inehgbity was vas, one
fixed by statute upon the candidate ana not one when ~
the result inference. OF that arising IRON some alleged
facts about the exIsence OF which or me result arising
from Them there could be dispute. Sucl II homage,
alienage conviction OF bribery, DC Now Is 20 DE al
mitted that this is the rule OF a%s III hn hs sose
within IT, No such notice as the Bush IaIdaen. II,
qured was given TO tIg Indeed il does NOT Sp
pear that any notice at all of any alleged inelgDnty
law way az notice Is the alleged notOrety OF certain acts
VIZ: the publication OF the letter Which, u u ealmeu
were evidence from which ineligblity can be inferred ny
The voter Bnt how notorious were even these facts
The letter was published In 1851 six years before the
election it was reproduced on the stump, put III now
many of those counties; in the hearing OF now many Oh
the Very who aforward, on election day cast th1r
votes for MIR Brown does not appear. IL must also he
remembered that what would be the legal result arising
from these acts was made certain before the voter
That result depended upon the purpose for which the
letter was written. and ITS effect All matters OF proof
and matters Of all times In dispute before the voters ana
about which even this Committee Itself. with better
opportunity than any voter even had 10 nVesngatc anu
examine all the evidence, now after q ful nearing
as nearly equally divided possible. How can IL bc
said then that any voter in casting his ballot Tor MI
Brown has been guilty OF wiul misconduct ana obst
macy" by casting vote for one known 10 be ineligible
Mr. Haywood says that IN England III Is not SO III
doubtful ease" Southwark Elections, page 259) IT,
| 4 he ndLnttnd TINT this Englsl rmln u law