Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1871-02-10
From the Sentinel.
COHTItSTED ELECTIONS.
SENATE.
EVENING SESSION.

The contested election case was taken
up, and pending consideration, the hour
for the consideration Of
THE SPECIAL ORDER
was announced, being the convention bill,
as amended by the House.
On motion of Mr.. Graham of Orange,
the Senate did not concur in tho House
amendments aud asked the appointment
OF a committee Of conference on the mat
ter.
Tho contested election was again taken
up, and Mr. l.. q. Edwards, the contcs-
tant Of the seat of Mr.. LgSsiter, from Gran.
vile, took the floor and argued at length
and fotclbly the grounds upon which he
contested said seat.
Mr.. LaSsiter replied to Mr.. Edwards,
and in support of his claims TO the scat
which he now holds, and concluded his
remarks by asking that the testimony ii
regard to tho Kittrell precinct DO read.
MIR. WhitesIde3 explained the grounds
upon which the committee refused to re-
ceIve the testimony relative to kittrcll
precinct vote.
MIR. A1errimou hoped the motion of Mr..
LassirCr would prevail, and the report re-
lative to the Kittrell precinct vote be read.
Mr.. Edwards statated that in regard to
this precinct, that he was prepared to show
illegal votes to have been cast there, but
the whole vote having been thrown out by
the commissioners of the county, he did
not feel that it was necessary for him to
take testimony in the matter.
MIR. Murphy thought that the evidence
Of one party should not be taken, when
the contestant was unprepared, for the
reasons he gave, to submit rebutting tes-
timony.
| Mr.. Lassiter stated that he had com
piled with the law in regard to his notice
to his contestant that he had complained
in said notice OF the fact that Kittrell
Springs vote had been thrown out, and
that he (Lassiter) would take evidence in
the matter.
Mr.. Linney submitted, in few peril
nent remarks, the conclusion arrived at by
the committee, upon which it based it's
opinion and action relative to this notice
OF Mr.. Lassiter to Mr.. Edwards.
Mr.. Jones thought that, according to
! the requirement Of the law, Messrs
| Barnet and Lasster had complied with
! the law in their notice to tho contestants
that certain legal votes, viz those cast at
Kittre!l Springs Township, had not been
| G Ounted.
Mr. Worth stated that the ground upon
which the committee declined to take con-
sideration of The evidence concerning the
Kittrell precinct was that in the notice of
| Mr.. Lassiter; he Lassiter) did not state
the reasons why be complained Of the non
counting Of said vote
Mr. Jones then proceeded to state that
he, with great Difference to tho committee,
differed with tho committee upon their
conclusion i'll the matter. Argued that
| Mr.. LaSSitCr could not have known what
reasons governed the Commissioners of tho
county IN throwing out tho vote, and did
not think the law intended to require Mr..
Lassiter to state specifically the grounds
upon which he (Lassiter) based his contest
relative to the KittrolI vote.
Mr.. Graham, of Orange, thought the
reason the gentlemen differed as to the
meaning Of the law was because they were
endeavOrlug tC apply the law to case
that it was never intended it should apply
to. Thought the action of tho Commits
sioners of the county in regard to throw
ing out the vote was conclusive, unless
there should be charge of fraud. If Mr..
Las@iter could show that return OF legal
votes cast at Kittrell's were properly made,
according to law, and III the time pre-
scribed by law, he WAS ready to receive
such evidence but the evidence of the
Commissioners OF the county, that the
vote reached them after the time prescribed
by law, and consequently was not counted,
debarred Mr.. Lassiter of the benefit OF
evidence in the matter, unless he could
prove or charge fraud on the part of the
i Commissioners.
/ MIR. Jones entirely accorded with NIr.
Graham.
Mr.. King, one of the Committee, stated
that he thought the notice of Mr.. Lassiter
was sufficient, and that tho evidence should
be received.
Mr.. Speed voted. IN committee, against
hearing this evidence, because Mr.. Lassi
, ter gave no reason why he held that thai
box should be counted-and he Speed
submitted that the law SO required him tt
do.
Mr.. Speed hoped that portion of the
evidence would he read.
t The motion to read was put aud pre-
, vailed
Mr.. Bachelor then read portion o
) the contesting notice Of Mr.. Lassiter, anC
} tho evidence of several witnesses in REGARD
to the Kittrell box.
Mr.. Graham, of Orange, was satisfied
, after hearing the evidence, that the vote
of Kittrells precinct should not have beer
} counted.
Mr.. Robbins, of Rowan, was opposed
| with the evidence before him, to the re
ception of the vote of KittrePs Springs.
5 Mr.. Jones renewed his substitute to seal
| Messrs. Edwards and Barnet.
Mr.. Lehman moved an amendment tc
J the substitute, viz : the name of Lassltel
for that of Edwards
Mr.. Worth stated that, in his opinion
IN legal and technical view OF the mat
9 ter, Mcssrs. Edwards and Bradshaw were
elected but to lay aside mere TECHNICAL
ties, he felt that Mr.. Edwards was entitled
to the seat of Mr.. Lassiter and that Mr.
Barnett should retain his seat.
3 Mr.. Robbins, of Rowan, called the pre-
, vious question, which was sustained.
, Upon the amendment to the substitute
, offered by Mr.. Lehman, the ayes and nav
, we're called, and it was rejected by large
vote.
Upon the question of the substitute Mr.
Love wished to know whether the ques
/ ton was divisible, aud made a motion thai
the question be divided. So ordered.
/ The question was then taken as to Mr.,
| Edwards. @
> The ayes and nays were demanded, and
I resulted as follows:
Those who voted in tho affirmative are
e Messrs. Adams, Albright, Allen, Battle
8 Brown, Cook, Crowell, Currie. Flemming
Il ~ l.