The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-01-29


he shall have been relieved Of disabilities, we
may and must consider his papers, in order to
determine whether the papers..reled upon by
his competitor show upon the face superior
title to the seat in dispute"
Mr.. Burr goes on to show by the returns
that Mr.. Simpson was elected by a large major
ity, and that he holds the prima .tacie certi6-
cate of election: snow for the exhibits in
favor of Mr.. Wallace. The only papers in sup
port of his prima tncie claim are, first, GER
tificate by the board of State canvassers, ptif-
porting to have been executed on the same
day as that held by Mr.. Simpson; and, second,
separate statement of the beard of State
canvasscrs Of South Carolina in the case OF
the election of William D. Simpson, Let MS
consider the certificate first. 1t differs from
that held by Mr.. Simpson only in three par
ticulars, and need not, therefore, be set out
here. except so far as the difference is to be
considered. Simpsons certificate declares him
to 'have been duly elected by major
ity of votes Wallace declares him to
have received a majority Of legal votes
The next point of difference is that Wallace's
paper bears the signature of Daniel Fl. Cham
bcrlain, Attorney General, in addition to the
names of State canvasscrs signing Simpsons;
and last the paper presented by Wallace bears
TO the left of the official signature OF the cam
yasscrs the words, Robert K. Scott, Governor
of South Carolina The minority sustain
these differences by an elaborate argument,
n
hold that the statement, without date, by Car
doza. Parker and Chamberlain Of the canvas
ser's amounts to an official recantation Of their
official act of.December l, upon which act have
since been based
First. A public statement.
Second. A certificate to The party.
Third. A commission by the Governor.
The minority submit that, both by lapse OF
time and force OF subsequent official action,
these men were barred from recantation even
If. on any showing, they might exercise it.
This view, If correct, disposes of the argument
that Neagle, the Comptroller, might retract
for If three together may not, of course one
cannot. The minority allude to the assump-
tion that these commissioners were lntlmida-
ted and under duress when they first acted,
and they ask, where is the proof% The
opening statement heretofore quoted, that they
.havc felt compelled to declare " Compelled
by what? Intimidation? Violence Threats
This is mere pettifogging. Could not the
same force that compelled the first act pre-
vent the publication Of this statement That
sentence merely says that strict discharge Of
official duties under the law compcls certain
action on their parts, which is declaration
that Simpson and not Wallace has pri'na .tdcie
right to the scat and they then say why they
think will be found to be the relative rights OF
the parties on final hearing Of the case on Its
merits. So far as this paper is a protest. or
that of Neaglc dissent the law of South Caro-
lima provides for its reception by the Secretary
of State, in whose office 1t shall be recorded in
book kept for the purpose but in no section
Is found authority for an act of revocation, or
paper annulllng preceding official deed"
When the discussion came up in the House
Yesterday, Mr.. Marshall, Of Illinois, inquired
for the certificate alleged to have been issued
to Wallace, and the committee had the clerk
read both-the one issued to Wallace and the
one to Simpson. Mr.. Randall, (Democrat,) OF
PENNSYLVANIA, then addressed the House in
favor of Simpson, and read from the Columbia
Phoenix the official advertisement Of the board
OF canvassers, showing that Simpson was
elected by 1892 majority. He said that there
was no such certificate, no such publication
made or pretended to be made in any respects
as TO Wallace, as the law required, and then
went on to show that the general certificate"
which the majority say was never sent to the
House of Representatives, ,eds sent here and
,ras lost. or 1cas stolen. But this paper
having now turned up since the committee
decided the case, Mr.. Randall maintained
very Justly that the record was now complete,
that the case was fully made up, and that
Simpson was prtna .tdcie entitled to the seat.
Mr.. r., in the course Of his remarks, said that
he had authority for stating that 1t "could be
established upon the testimony of CardoZa,
Secretary of State of South Carolina, that the
certificates presented by Hoge and Wallace,
and relied upon by the majority as showing a
pri,na fdcie title in favor of Hogc and Wallace,
were not gotten up in his (thc Secretary Of
State's) office, or signed b. him as an official
act, as he will say under oath; that Hogc and
Wallace called and got from him the blank GER
tlcatcs. carried them ont of his office, and
had them filled up as they appear; that they
then returned, sought his signature, and OBJ
tanned it, without his reading or noticing its
contents or the dates" And in the further
course of debate, he said that the committee
intended to bring these two gentlemen before
them TO explain to the committee and the
House how they could legally sign two sets Of
papers. Mr.. Randall added:
state that he will further say under oath,
if allowed to come here and testify, that he re-
.rarded such signature as unofhclal, because IL
was beyond the time allowed by law 10 10 any
official act in the premises.
Now. in the face of all this, is the Honse pre-
norrd 70 thrust a man in here who never was
elected by the people he claims to represent
here? And not only was he not elected, but
he was beaten by over four thousand votes.
This is case In which not even the largests
latitude of political disposition will warrant
tho marty on the other side Of the House in
taking the position advocated by the report OF
the majority. This officer will swear-and
rrcollect that it is Mr.. Card0za Of whom am
sncaking. the colorcd Secretary OF State OF
South Carollna-and lie ought to be good au-
thority in this House
Mr., Hogc. Has the gentlemen the affidavit
of the Secretary of State OF South Carolina
Mr Randall. l stated distinctly that if the
onnortunity was given Mr.. Cardoza would