The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1869-10-28
An ADMISSION.

Az the nitetfh9 Ol Nile SofndtoTidi AZ
turn Judges, on the 10Th instant, an at
tempt was made by few unscrupulous
Radical politicians to cheat Hiram
Findlay, Senator elect from this dis
trict, out of the certificate of election.
1t appeared that at the meeting Of the
board OF Return Judges for Somerset
county, the Return Judge from Allie
gheny township did not present GER
tificate of the number of votes p0lled
for the several candidates signed by the
election officers, but only handed in the
h1lly paper, which be supposed TO be
sufficient return. The board refused to
count the vote Of that township from
the talIg paper, but sent the Allegheny
Judge after his certificate, which, by
mistake, had been sealed up in the bal
l0t-box. The board waited until mid
night for the temperance Of the Re
turn Judge, but as he had some fifty
miles TO travel he did not reach Somer-
set until half past II O'Clock, in the
morning, just half an hour after the
Radical Judges left the meeting. Fhe
Democratic Judges, however, remain
ell, and received, and counted the Ale
gheny return, and elected one Of their
number, as provided by law, to repre-
sent the Board of Return Judges of
Somerset county in the meeting of Sen
atorial Return Judges. The Radical
Judges in their haste to get away be-
fore the return of the Allegheny Judge,
who mad been sent after his certificate
by their own direction, did not com
plete their work in any particular
They did not wait for the addition Of
the returns OF the several districts Of
the county, butsigned ali the necessary
papers in blank, leaving their whole
duty to be performed by their clerks.
Under the decision of Attorney Gene
raj Meredith, in the Colfroth- -koontz
case, it was the duty Of the Return
Judges to adjourn till the next day, so
that the whole vote Of the county
might be received and counted But
theyimagined that an advantage might
be gained for Mr.. Scull, by emitting
Allegheny township from the count,
and, therefore, FASTENED to disperse.
This little project to nulIify the will of
the people Of this Senatorial district,
however, has most signally failed The
Board of Senatorial Return Judges pre-
ferred to receive the complete rather
than the partial return from Somerset,
and a certificate of oleotion was given
to Mr.. FindIay signed by all the Judg-
es and attested by John G.. Fisher,
Democrat, and NJ. a. Points, Repubii-
can, the two clerks.
The Inquirer, of last week, has the
following editorial comments on this
subject:
"There seems to be no evidence of
fraud i'm the returns Of AlleghepytOW
ship, and the objection to it is OH the
ground of irreguIarity. The closeness
of the Senatorial vote seems likely to
provoke a contest and thisis most likely
the beginning of it. We are not pre-
pared TO indorsc the actionOf the Som
erset return Judges, as we believe they
would have done better to have ad
iourned to the next day and waited for
the full returns. We think the election
should be contested but do not believe
this the best way to begin. The move
ment however has precedent som >
what similar in the case of Koontz and
Coffroth in the Congressional contest of
1864, and as it has that famous Demo
cratic precedent the Democracy cannot
coneistently object fn dose nf their
own medicine"
This is tantamount to an admission
that Mr.. Findlay is fairly entitled to
the certificate Of election. The Inquirer
might have gone further and said that
there is not even an allegation of fraud
in Allegheny township. That district
gave Mr.. Findlay 40 majority, which
is not larger than its usual Democratic
majority. But the Inquirer seems to
think that the election should be con-
tested. If there is MODIFICATION Of fraud,
iCLy should it be contested? Simply be
cause Mr.. Findlay's majority is small
and Radical trickery in the Senate will
find d way to blot it out? Is that the
only reason? AS for the precedent al
legged to have been set by the Demo-
Gratis in the Coifroth- -Koontz case, the
odds make the difference. In that case
Mr.. Cotfroth alleged and proved fraud
ulent votes. There is no such allega-
tion, nor can there be any such proof in
this one. But the Inquirer, conceding
that Findlay is entitled TO the eertifi-
cate, holds that what was wrong when
committed by the Democrats, is venial
when done by its own party. Prob
PtalOr, Lutzl
=-==nz-@~--a-4-~~~-s-@n=~@
LOCAL ELECTIONS.