The Baltimore County union., 1874-05-16
Mr.. BrOOEe's Letter.
UPPER MARLBORO, MD,

Editors Union An article in your paper
OF the I'd inst, is so manifestly unjust to our
return judges and myself, that presume upon
slight acquaintance to trouble you with the
following facts.
My residence was not the headquarters of
the return judges either before or since the
election only one of them was here between
the day OF election and the return day. nor did
see or communicate with any of the rest of
them during that period. They all arrived
here on the morning of the return day, imme-
diately discharged their duty and went home,
some OF them without even speaking to or Wis
iting me. Indeed several of them never were
at my residence in their lives. The majority
of three was conceded to me by the opposi-
ton the day after the election, hnt afterwards
they reduced it to one by claiming that the
votes of two parties who removed here over
six months ago and have been since perma-
nently residing here, should pe thrown out be-
cause they voted on certificates from their old
homes in Anne Arundel county. They raised
no question about the residence Of these par
ties, but only attacked the right to vote upon
certificates, while Capt. Widdicombe himself
voted upon one from another district in this
county where his family still resides.
can only ascertain five votes refused here,
two of whom have been in Washington city for
several years and another an unpardoned
convict (Which three parties the Legislature
declared should not have voted last fall and
of registered voters.
A colored man who has been absent from
the county over three years, in Pennsylvania,
Baltimore, &C., &C., returned here since Christ
mas, and although he had been marked "dead"
on the registration book, the judges of election
placed his name upon the list of voters and re-
ceived and deposited his ballot for Capt. Wild
dicombe. Only one slight difficulty occurred
here on the day of election, and in proof that
no one was intimidated or driven from the
polls the vote here was only two short of that
polled at the general election, and Capt. Wild
dicombes majority over me here was increased
exactly so votes. 1t is true in several of the
districts there were more tickets than voters,
but as Capt. Widdcombe's majority in these
was increased even beyond has most sanguine
hopes and very far above my calculations it
seems more reasonable to infer that his friends
cast them than that mine did. To have thrown
out the entire vote of these districts would
have increased my majority over 200, but it
was not done, so l cannot understand how that
majority is claimed against me.
We have Republican judge of election in
every district and the only complaint comes
from the one here against the refusal to allow
the parties designated within to vote.
Having necessarily made this communica-
ton somewhat long to cover all the charges in
your article. l can scarcely expect you to pub
lish it entire, but sincerely hope and believe
you Will 90 nySell anu lrIeuuS SlIuple JuotiOo
in the matter.
With high regard, am
yours, very respectfully,
HENRY BROOKE.
The above is the letter referred to by the
Union last week. 1t is not our desire to pro-
woke personal discussion with Mr.. Brooke. He
admits that there was one return judge at has
house between the election and the return of
the ballots.
By Mr.. Brookes own version of the returns
we claim that Capt. Widdicombe is elected
clerk. He comedies that, by throwing out the
t,oo uotes from Anne Arundel county, he has
in Prince Georges upon a certificate that he is
a registered coter IN Anne arundel county is
species of political legerdemain to which Dem
ocratic law and morals seem specially adapted.
These two votes were clearly illegal. Then Mr..
Brooke on this ground has only one majority.
Capt. Widdicombe had an undoubted right
to vote on transfer certificate from one dis
trict to another, in the same county. This is the
laao. We have no evidence that the two vo-
ters who, according to Mr.. Brooke, "have been
in Washington city, for several years, were not
entitled to vote in Prince Georges county. The
fact that their names have been retained on
the registration list by Democratic registrars
is very conclusive to our mind that they were
then justly, under the Constitution, entitled to
vote. There are numerous Democrats who re-
side in Baltimore city most of the year who
are at the same time legal voters of Baltimore
county. Why could not a Republican reside
in Washington and vote legally in Prince
Georges? We deny the right of the Legsla-
ture to decide who is and who is not legal
voter. This, under the la,o, is the province of
the registrar primarily, and of the Court by
appeal.
With these three votes thrown out, according
to the legislative decision, Capt. Widdicombe
on the first election had clear majority OF four.
Yet Democratic justice declared him not elect
which it is conceded would have been for Capt.
Widdicombe, he aoould haze majority of one,
according to Mr.. Brooke's showing. The colored
voter who has been absent in pennsylvania,
Baltimore, &C., &c." and who was marked
"dead" according to Mr.. Brookes statement,
was not necessarily debarred legally from vo-
ting. If he claims his home in Prince Georges
and mad acquired no voting residence else
where, as seems likely by the fact that he was
moving about, he was ent tiled to vote. No
man should be deprived of his vote because he
was erroniously marked "dead,' which was
certainly the case in this instance.
We do not advocate the voting of convicts,
hut Jor uba
Mr.. Brooke asserts was an unpardoned con-
vict, was registered, by Democr attic registrar,
this was conclusive evidence of his right to
VOTE" while furnishing a certificate that man
was registered voter of Anne Arundel county
was Conclusive evidence" that he was not en-
titled to vote in Prince Georges county. The
law requires that the vote ofthe registered man
should be taken and that of the unregistered
rejected. Yet Mr.. Brooke informs us that this
was exactly reversed.
To assert by implication that Republicans
stuffed ballot boxes when two of the three judg-
es were Democrats, is spreading it little too
thick for the simplest credulity. The fact that
Capt. Widdicombe's majority was legitimately
increased $50 votes" at Upper Marlboro, war;
rants the inference that his increased MAORI
ties elsewhere were legitimate. 1t was a
shrewd game of the Democracy-Awe do not
say that Mr.. Brooke was privy to ito perpe-
trate fraud by "stuffing" where it was known
Capt. Widdicombe would obtain maorities.
These were the districts to be thrown out, if it
should be necessary. Democrats are not such
simpletons as to do their cheating at polls
where if they were obliged to be thrown out for
fraud, they knew they would have a majority.
They never discriminate against themselves,
as the whole affair shows.
Mr.. Brooke convinces us that he has been
twice defeated, that Capt. Widdicombe was
elected first by not less than four and second