The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1869-10-15

gress of the trial told Martin to "give
it up," "that it was no use," "as he bad
had fight with one of the Board
Considerable excitement was manifest
ed, and when, on leaving the witness
stand, he said "If ever vote another
Radical vote they'll have to give me
something that will take away my
Senses" he was loudly cheered, and one
of the escaped victims shouted, GLORY
Fox's case was then continued until
Tuesday morning.
Confusion reigned supreme for some
time, but order being restored, the bust
ness progressed.
The next unfortunate man was MIN
rod 3. Foster, formerly of Upshur
county, whose only offence consisted in
the fact that he lived on the farm of j.
N. Bennett, Esq. Mr.. Foster made D
speech, full of telling facts, in which he
said, "that he had always been Union
man-had voted against the ordinance
of secession-had voted five times for
Doctor Pinnell, and had never ceased to
vote for the Radicals until he saw they
were running the country. That the
only thing he was sorry for was his past
radicalism, and if the good Lord would
forgive him, he would never be gully of
voting for them any more" He proved
by K. Fretwell and Geo. Cozad that he
had always been an uncompromising
Union man, and was suffered to remain
voter, much to his qualification, which
he manifested by denouncing the arbi-
trary action of the Board in unmeasured
terms.
The next case we notice was that of
Walter Fox, who was arraigned under
the sweeping charge of "disloyalty."
He succeeded in proving himself a
Union man from the beginning, but in
doing so, his brother Ben Fox was intro
duced. In giving in his testimony Ben
took occasion to remark that "he was
not biased by any feeling for his brother
although the Board might think so" for
which remark he was fined SO and i'm
mediately afterwards IS for repeating
it. Upon this Ben remarked sit was all
right. That he had the money-and if
he hadn't enough of his own he would
apply to the Radicals-then to his God,
and if they failed, he would call on the
Democrats-and he knew they had it,"
He also said that "if this, (the action of
the Board) was Radicalism, he would
give his right hand before he rOWld erer
rote for it again." which sentiment
was echoed and endorsed by several
others present who have always voted
with the Radical party. But he said a
good thing as he took his seat, and that
was "that he would pay the fine now,
but he was afraid the rascals would cheat
him in the changer
Evan Cooper's case was next on the
docket, and although no charge was
made or proved against him, and he
proved himself to have been a good
citizen and a peaceable, quiet man, his
right to vote was numbered among the |
things that were.
We next notice the case of J. w. d.
McCutchen, who was summoned under
the the same general charge as the |
others, but it was amusing when the
evidence disclosed the fact that he was |
but twelve years old at the breaking |
out of the war, and that he was but a
child, as he expressed it, mot bigger
than pound of soap" He was re-
tanned.
Marcellus Bennett was next put on
trial, and after producing a large num-
Der of witnesses, succeeded in heaping
such mass of testimony that the Board
could not strike him off without such
manifest disregard of evidence that he
was suffered to remain on the lists.
Joseph Bennett, however, was stricken
off because one of the witnesses testified
that che understood he was sympa-
thizer with the South"
The next victim was Uncle Robert
Crawford, who is rs well known as any
farmer in the county. His offence, like
the rest, was "disloyalty," and while
proof showed that ne was n peaCeablc
man and a good citizen, and had never
committed any act against the Govern
ment, it was the opinion of one witness
that he was not quite as good Union
man at the close as he was at the begin
ming of the war.
Joseph B. Wallace, the next victim,
was summarily disposed Of on the evil
dcnce of Ben. Posey, . short sketch OF
passage in whose life once appeared in
our paper, he testifying that Wallace
had attended a meeting to form a COM
pany of Home Guards, but no act Of
disloyalty being proved against him.
George u. Curtis was next called on
to defend his right as citizen, and sue
ceeded in proving himself "lOyal," as
did Il. Curtis, the only offence he being
charged with being that two OF his sons
were in the rebel army.
The next unfortunate was VIM. ".
Craig, of whom it was testified that che
was generally supposed to sympathize
with the Confederacy"-good character
and all its concomitants being unable
to save him from political death.
j. A. Craig was the next slaughtered.
His offence consisted of the fact that his
fathcr-in-law had been sent to Camp
Chase.
John G. Arnold put in his answer, and
being sustained by inoontestible proof
of "loilty," he was allowed TO remain
one of the elect.
Alexander Skinner was struck off be-
cause the witness "bciicrei that he had
sympathized with the South"
William +. Heeter was struck of
for what did not appear, as the netice
had been executed on UiiIidm Heeter,
an entirely different man, William +.
Heeter not having been notified.
George A. Hoover succeeded in hav-
ing his name retained-the sympathy"
dodge being of no avail in his case.
1t had now become late, and the
thing adjourned until Tuesday morning.
Tuesday morning the Board met
again and proceeded to business, and
in fire minutes by the rGtch FOUR MEN
had ceased to be citizens of the glorious
State Of West Virginia
After these summary decapitstions,
the case of George d. Curtis was taken
up, and he was accused in the usual
style of ''disloilty." He proved himself
"loil" in manner satisfactory TO any
reasonable man, but the "lIon" was not
satisfied and proceeded to swear Curtis.
The first question he asked him was
"what were your sympathies during
the war r. On being told that they
were tor the Union, the Board grunted
a dismal grunt, sabsided into its chair,
and Curtis was saved.
II. II. Rittenhouse was then called on
70 answer the charge Of disloyalty,
which he did in neat little speech, in
Z