The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1870-01-06
RADICAL FRAUD.


EidjOFttE Jl upNdiN VI -VV Oh 1LC hA5 iAV
Of the election, but when the return
judges met, his opponent, NJ. Watt,
was counted in by &c majority. 1t is
asserted by the Democrats of Philadel-
phia, and admitted by the decent radi-
cal journals of that city, that this was
accomplished by an act of deliberate
forgery. Judge Allison, whenapplied
to for mandamus to compel the re-
turn Judges to count the true vote cast
for these two candidates, declared from
the bench, that the certificate electing
Watt was nothing else than false
return" The Judge is a radical of the
straitest sect, but conscientious enough
to admit the rascality of his party
The Philadelphia St0aday Dispatch,
Journal which is always found in op-
position to the Democratic party, in
its issue Of Oct. Il, 1869, had the fol-
lowing comments on the action of the
return judges in this case:
It can scarcely be questioned. by anv
one who looks carefully at the returns
Of the election last week. that fraud
has been resOrted to in the Board of
Return Judges in order to give the
certificate OF election to the Senate from
the First district to William w. Watt.
The district is composed of the First.
Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh.
Eighth, and Twenty-sixth wards
The return is: For Watt, Republican,
1907 for Diamond, Democrat, Il. $40,
In the same wards, Geary had I2,723
votes or 253 less than are given to
Watt; while Packer had 1927, or
i09 more than are awarded to Dia,
mOnd. Williams had u, ,S34 votes, or
I52 less than are given to Watt; whilst
l'ershing had l3,l43, or 303 more than
are given to Diamond. Now, is there
any reason why Watt should be more
popular than Geary or Williams, or
that Diamond should be more unpopu-
lar than Packer or Pefshing? The
presumption is that the vote of neither
of these Senatorial candidates was
governed by personal considerations,
bat was purely political. There is no
reason why Mr.. Watt should run a.
head of his ticket, nor that Mr.. Dia-
m0nd should lag behind. The whole
thing has suspicious look, and iusti-
fies the belief that the return is a gross
fraud.
A similar outrage was attempted in
the legislative return for the Thirteenth
district. The return Judge, who must
have profted by the knowledge of the
means by which the ByerIy frauds
were perpetrated some years ago, took
his return to his residence and placed
them in bookcase, from which they
mysteriOusiy disappeared before the
morning. Officers of election usually
have good memories as to the very
few figures required in a general re-
turn, but This one had not With his
certificate he lost his recollection
He was compelled to resort to the re-
turn filed ia the ProthOnotary'5 Office
and, by a most remarkable fatality,
Nat return had been tampered with
and the figures altered, the innocent
return Judge not being aware of the
remarkable change in the result, which
tftGtCtt Il CdLlitdtt w nOLl llt LIlb9t
have known was defeated; and, being
unable to notice the palpable alteration
III the figures, he copied off the mutt
lated return rs be found it. The re-
suit would have been to certify that
Mr.. Geisz, Republican, was elected to
the Legislature instead of Mr.. Forsyth,
who had the majority. No one with
common sense will believe that the
election officer was ignorant of the
fact that GeisZ was defeated. In that
ease, by prompt action, the fraud was
prevented, and Mr.. Forsyth received
mis- certificate. One of the effects Oi
the Registry law, we were told, would
be TO create an honest class of election
officers, appointed by the Board OF Al,
dermen. In no case heretofore IN this
city have there been such glaring at
tempts at fraud a. have been made in
the hope of unseating Diamond and
Forsyth. If these are the blessings oi
the new system, the sooner we return
TO the old plan the better
The Dispatch is supported in its
statements y the Philadelphia Morn
inq Post, an intensely radical sheet
which in its issue of Oct. Is, 1869, de
nounced the return giving the election
to Watt as palpable fraud. As fur
ther evidence, from radical sources, We
subioin the article of the Post just re
ferred to.
.'The Legislature alone can decide
whether Mr.. Watt or Mr.. Diamond
was elected in the First Senatorial Dis
trict. Contested election cases are sub
mitted TO special committees, not Sc
lected. we believe, but chosen by
chance. The evidence is taken anC
the arguments made before the com
mittee, and its decision is generally
final.
we pointed out on Saturday tht
facts which makes this case a very
crave one. We showed that while the
returns gave Dir. William w. Watt
the Republican candidate, a mojority
of I76 in the First district, the sever
wards which compose that district
gave Democratic majorities for all Other
officers voted for. SellerS's majority
over Ashton il 2Sl Packers majority
over Geary is 524. These figures dc
not lie, but they suggest lying. 1t il
impossible for US to see any cause fol
this amazing difference in the vote 0
those wards. We thought we under
stood the canvass in this city tolerably
well, and knew the popular and un
Dopular candidates. But we disc0v
cred no enthusiasm for Mr.. Watt, nC
objection to Mr.. Diamond, sufficient Il
explain why the former should get /
Republican majority of I76 in a Dem
ocratic district, which went agains
such "a popular candidate as Mr.. Ash
ton by 28l votes. If any one can sh0q
as even a plausible explanation of thi
political miracle our obligations viii
be great.
But ill good cause for Mr.. Watt
astonishing and unexpected majorit.
:-..-.-... ....-..........t .:iizar.. of haLI