Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1871-11-22

uoTOuput NHlCH BhNc ullh UnuJOTlly
of l02 votes, tho township of Monroe
Al aud the district of Shippcnsburg
2G0 That the Irregularities were so
great us to have required that the
said districts should have been entirely
thrown out in making up the returns
That in addition to these irregularities
the returns from several of the dis.
tricts were not signed or certified to
by the election officers as required by
law which fact will more fully appear
from the following certificate from
the prOthonotary OF Cumberland coun.
ty lin whose said office said returns
are fled, and which certificate was
before tho senatorial district return
judges ut the time Of their meeting on
the 18th day Of October, 1871.
The following is a synopsis Of the
prothonotary's certificate:
In Monroe township the tally list is
certified by the officers Of the election
and there is no other return of The
votes polled.
In Lower Southampton it is signed
"David Hoch' without certificate, and
there is no other return polled,
In Lower Allen the tally list is
signed by the officers Of the election
on its face and certified to by the
Judge on the back of it--no other re.
turn having been filed of the votes
pollcd,
In another tally list, filed but not
signed or certified, aud no other re.
turn filed of votes polIed. ln Upper
Dickinson tally list filed but not sign.
ed or certified, and no other retgrn
filed Of votes polled. In Middlesex
tally list certified by the judge and no
other return filed. In East Penn
borough tally list certified by officers
and no other return. Upper Allen
tally signed by the judge and no re-
turn OF the votes polled,
Signed by the prothonotary.
Tho respondent further answers
that several of the return judges filed
protests against the reception of the
returns and the including them in the
making up of general returns for the
county, ANA ne believed they would
uVt ha,V Uven Ia, Coz tho h"...-:-. Il
manner in which the business of the
board was conducted, which is shown
by the fact that the Judges signed the
general return certificate in blank,
leaving it to bc afterwards filled up
by the clerk.
Third. The respondent further says,
that he should not be compelled to
certify to the election of the said
james NJ. Weakley in any other man.
ner than he has already done, for the
reason that he knows from facts with.
in his personal knowledge, aud from
other facts learned from Trustworthy
sources and which your respondent
kdo,cS can be proved clearly and con
elusiveIy that the grosscst and most
unbushing bribery and corruption
was resorted to to secure the election
of James M,Wcakly; that it was open.
" asserted that the said senatorial
district should be carried for said
Weakley at any cost Of money. That
J. NJ. W oakley received, from parties
residing outside of the district, large
sum of money on ut least two occa
sions, to be used in securing his cleo
tion. That this money was distrib.
utcd Ivy him among certain persons
(wbose names the respondents is advised
it is not necessary to disclose) to be
used not only for what may be called
the legitimate expenses Of an election
campaign, but for the illegal purpose
of influencing votes and purchasing
votes. That in the borough of Ne.
chanisburg, Cumberland county, u
large sum Of money, as admitted by
the person who had control of il here,
was used to influence votes. That
the same was the case in Shippcns.
burg, and that in the borough of Car.
Iisle there was hardly an attempt at
concealment of the lavish use of money
in the open purchase Of votes for
Weakley That in Wcakley's office
in Carlisle borough-the Carlisle Her.
did-tho sum of S26 was paid for
the votes ofthirteen soldiers stationed
at tho barracks; that Woakley's busi.
ness partner openly stated that he
had bought eleven votes for $40, and
other votes at different prices one
for pair of shoes, aud that he had
gone out on the morning of the election
day with 500 which he had expended
before going home at night for votes
for Wcakley. That in one instance
money was thrown into hat and u
voter asked to take thereirom as much
as he desired in return for his influence
for Wcakley, and for u candidate for
another Office on the same ticket with
him The respondent refers to the
above instance in order to indicate
the nature of the means used to Sc.
cure Weakley's election, but they do
not convey an adequate idea Of the
gross corruption made use of
And your respondent further aud
| finally answers that the said James ".
H'clkicy himScJ paid money directly to
PERSONS 10 secure their influence and rotes
or his. as candidate for the office Of
state senator aud in influencing other
voters, and that this he is prepared
to prove clearly and beyond doubt
The respondent avoring his ability
and willingness 10 maintain and prove
the matters and things set forth above
submits that he should not DO com
PEELED against his conscience TO certify
an election due James NJ. Wcaklcy, o
to sign any other certificate than hC
has already signed,
Ii is evident from the foregoing (th,
half is not told,) that our Deputy Sec
reiary is us well up to ballot.box stutl
ing us any black or whito Radical il
Philadolphia, New Orleans, or Soutl
Carolina, although he stands high Il
the Radical synagogue.