Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1874-03-26

: - $50 4 ssl's .safEsFs gakassslI IIlsa
E4RCH %. 1874 30 . ss..ia
AsN > sasb sTsu .pSlSTnssl iffss ~ sssss
ii'4lusssss d tsss.s sslss q p+s,iOssa sssai.
ION a ssrvitads. stusbasssq aol las.. II
he lfat shetins e he adopsioa of the
leoaGlitsfiooal aneadaeas, & vso depaarso
b The Constitutes of the State of Mary
land. sssAaf no perso6 sbovs Ne sgs ol
|sosug g-sss, sssvieted u flafseuT - 10th.
. iafaneus eins. u.lsn pssdsnsl ty De
t0esesnos. shall ssvsr thssealtsf b enti-
I'd . yots q any election Of this State. {"
Tie eonstitutioual amendmeos would not
ISoalsr - right y vote. becssse The pay
~ llahesing runder . disqsali6mti0h,
lNhieh prsssassd TIE sonstitstiooal amsnd-
nent froe erssssiY u bis bshalf. - I
The disquali6essioa d not : punish
j1entf6r erf0s. vhish never stt,dhed,
! lhssssss = tie tius of eousiseiss the sisAt
| = sote aid - esist. ,but h . aisqpali6-
leolisq uhieh lblloss by rsasan, q sesvis-
esd s;hi~A exer thosfeitos .lseleess
! the elective franchise lfom 6el6x ~
joyed. 7s r.a' $500 1T
To give it any other construction soald
place large class Of negro sonvicts. ip
better position than white convists.
The disqualification 10 founded upon
reasons of public policy. isnd the same
reasons Of public policy should exclude
al negro convicts not psrdoned.
Under the sixth reason for contestiug
the election. that non-residents Of the
State and county we're permitted to vote
st said election. largo amount Of tssti.
mouy vss taken. The contestant claimed
that sixteen nou.rcsidents voted for Wild
dicombe. and Widdieombe claimed that
fifteen residents voted for Brooke
While the testimony showed that those
voting for Widdieombs had in most cases
left the county and gone to Washington
to live for some years. still, in nearly all
cases, it was shown that the parties claimed
to be only absent temporarily, and that
they had never sbandoned their intention
to return, or their claim to residence in
the county.
Those voting for Brooke and claimed
|
testimony to be persons who lived 10 the
State. but we're pursuing their means Of
livelihood in the City of Baltimore. or on
the line Of the Baltimore and Potomac
Railroad Company and the proof showed, !,
that in all such cases. the intention not
to abau loa their residence had been plain
| " expressed by the parties, and they had
voted in the county for years.
Residence is a mixed question of law
and fact. and while party may DO tenn
porarily absent from the State. and still
retain his residence il he has the intention
Of returning. yet some Limitation should
be placed upon this right, else in the case
Of Prince Georges and other border coun-
tics. the political complexion Of these coun-
ties may continue to be determined by .
c.ass Of parsons who. having no fixed or
local abode under this plea of intention.
hoat to and fro. and constitute an element
which, without any permanent interest.
will turn the scale in the closely contested
elections.
Until some further legislation is had
upon this question Of residence. defining
it with some accuracy. your Committee
think it improper to exclude from the count
on either side any except the votes Of
those clearly proven to be within the class
Of non-residents.
One nonresident. John G.. Let's. is
proved to have voted for Brooke; and two
non-residents. Sam. Williams aud Geo.
Bowling. for Widdicombe. Sam. Will
iiams. (page SO. is proved to have re-
sided in Washington City, and to have
voted there.
Although George Bowling tes,ifes that
he was only living temporarily in Wash
ingtou City, (page 97.) proves tha. he
had conversation with Bowling in 1872,
in which Bowling told him he never in
tended to come back to Prince Georges
county to live, and advised him to leave.
This. taken in connection with the tcsti-
mony of other witnesses. satisfies the Com
! mittce that be is not entitled to vote in
the county.
The result Of recount Of the vote with
these corrections and allowances. would
give Brooke 9. 354 votes and Widdicombe
$3.50 votes. thus clecting Brooke BY twen-
ty.four majority. II. however, from this
We wercto deduc, from Widdicombc's .
vote. Henry Holland aud Geo. Bowling.
it would leave Brooke With tweuty-two
majority.
Your Committee. while they do not de-
clare the contestant entitled to the Office
By reason Of bis election, but only order
4 new election. have no hesitation in say.
ing that the facts disclosed in the testimo.
ny establish 10 Marlboro District con.
di.ion Of things on the day Of election with
which Widdicombe is shown to have been
directly connected, which warrants them
in declaring against his right to the Of.
6ce.
Il is one thing for cauiida.e to mani
fest proper zeal on the day of election in
securing votes. aud IL this was all that
the evidence disclosed. your Committee
would not deem It proper to disturb the
result Of the returns. But the evidence
shows more than this. Il shows that the
secrecy Of the ballot-bcx was violated un-
der pretended claim Of ar,ho rity. L,
shows that Democratic tickets we're taken
from, voters when they we're on the line
lcf march to deposit them. aud torn up.
ahd Republican tickets given in their
iplaee. or fcissed upon them By cunning
device, and Il shows that during the ear
''ier portion Of the day Of election con.
di,ion of things existed about the polls in
Marlboro which must have had the effect
Of in,imida,ing class Of voters and pre-
venting free and fair esrressi"u Of their