Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1878-08-11

] 100 NO'eSt duu IN Uue isst election j. w. An
/ derson received 3O3, showing an increase of
I07 on my vote. At the same time C.. L.
Anderson received but AS votes, falling 4SI
behind Colonel Young's vote.
And now for the fourth: There Colonel
Young had 951 votes, just "a more than the
entire vote cast In the late election. re-
ceixed in that ward but 800 votes, and j. w .
Anderson received APT, showing an increase
of 127. At the same time G. L. Anderson re-
ceIved but 500 votes, falling behind Colonel
Young AL votes.
think | need say nothing about the fall
ing off in fifth and sixth wards. Ii was not
unusual-at least if the sixth ward in a vote
of 767 could egitimatey fall off l23 votes,
the fifth ward might properly lose 135 votes
on a vote of 1908. And In both wards the
same results may be noticed as in the second
third and fourth. Thus while Colonel Young
received in the fifth ward All votes, Z. l..
Anderson received but 26l, or 156 less. And
while received 79l votes, J. w. Anderson
received Sl2, or q more. So you see the
voters are still there and have not changed a
great deal
And finally, the other three Republican
wards of 1876, the seventh, ninth and tenth.
In the seventh had 483 votes, while j. w.
| Anderson had but 412 showing falling off
of II on my svote. This is the only ward
where there is such a falling off. In that
| ward Colonel Young received 294 votes. and
G. L. Anderson 286, showing Colonel Young
received more votes than Anderson did
The II majority had over j. w. Anderson,
and the Colonel Young had over G. l.. An
derson, make exactly 70, the number the ag-
gregate vote has fallen off since 1876. In
the ninth ward had 500 votes, and ]. w.
Anderson had COL, or 81 more, and Colonel
Young had $50, and c. L. Anderson 233, or
LAT less. And In the ninth ward l had III
votes, and j. w. Anderson 1913, or Is more,
and Colonel Young had 379, and G. l.. An
derson 262 or III less.
Here, again, the vote | received is account
ed for, and so 1t is, as | have shown, every
where In the city, except the II in the sew
enth ward. Is that falling off evidence of
| fraud in the election of 1876 In the seventh
ward? If so, what do you say about the fall
ing off in the second, third and fourth?
The falling off the fifth, seventh and
| tenth wards, all in the fourteenth civil dis
trict may be explained by the fact that In the
election IN 1876 there was no polling place
outside the city in the fourteenth district, and
the voters residing In that district, outside
the city, were allowed to vote at any ward in
the city within the district. The falling off
| in the fifth, seventh and tenth wards, as al
ready shown, was only 3l5, while the vote at
the recent election In the fourteenth district,
outside the city, where no vote at all was
/ cast in 1876, was 522, which makes up the
loss and PIT more.
would like to invite you to go into an ex-
animation with me of the election of 1876 In
| Fayette county. But as you have confined
! your article to Shelby, | will do the same.
And if you will bear with me while give
you few facts about the seventh district
Bartlett shall conclude.
| If you will examine the poll books of the
election in November, 1876, in the Office of
| County Court Clerk Reilly, you will find the
| names of SAB voters on the poll list. You
will find the returns showing Colonel Young
received 276 votes and l 81. You will find
4 Ill l,Anz
responding votes. The difference between
543 and 357, the aggregate Of Colonel
| Youpg's vote and mine, is 1876. No other
candidate was voted for, and the returns fail
to show what became of the 1876 votes There
| is an explanation outside the poll-books and
returHs-one you might get from the mem
bers of grand jury, or a prosecuting attor-
ney-but not the grand jurors or the prosecu-
ting officer you threatened with in your article.
The explanation is that The ballot-box was
tempered with while the officers of the cleo
ton were at dinner, or on their way from
dinner, and votes were taken out, but nobody
knows how many. Other tickets-Democrat-
ic, counterfeited so as to resemble the Repub-
lcan ticket-were put in in sheets or leaves,
not folded, but laying together, just as they
came from the press, to the number of IS or
100. When the counting was commenced
the votes so put In III sheets or leaves were
discovered, were admitted to be fraudulent,
other votes counted and returned.
These facts are undisputed, and have been
proved twice before petit jurIes IN this city,
and yet presume very few people know of
them. Had they occurred elsewhere-in Lou
isiana or Florida, for instance-the world,
through our city papers, those watch dogs of
the public liberty, would soon have known all
tie particulars. As it is, not single news
paper-not even the independent" ArG-
lauche-has ever pretended to state the facts
connected with the Bartlett frauds.
The ballot-box having been robbed and
STUFFED, no one can say precisely what the
vote was. | suppose, however, after the
comparisons we have made, you will admit it
pretty safe to take the vote OF the last cleo
ton at Bartlett as a tolerably certain evidence
Of what it was at the election of 1876.
Taking your own report, the entire vote for
vote in 1876 OF these, J. w. Anderson re-
ceived 375 votes and G. l.. Anderson 40.
The majority for j. w. Anderson was there
fore 235.
But have told you the returns In Reillys
Office give me but 81 and Colonel Young 276,
thus showing a majority for him of 1876. Now
of the % votes cast in 1876, not cast in 1878,
say got Is and Colonel Young 10, which is
too favorable for him. if my majority is reck-
oned Ia. same as j. w. Anderson's. 1t fol-
lows beat Colonel Young at Bartlett just 253
votes. In other words l received at Bartlett
received $50 instead of 276. Now this adds
to my vote 81, and takes from Colonel
Young's 126, and makes a difference in my
favor of-or rather makes 1t appear | was de-
frauded of 443 votes at the delightful little
town of Bartlett alone.
You will remember Colonel Young's re-
ported majority over me in the tenth district, |
composed of Hardeman, Fayette and Shelby, |
was only SS1. Here goes little more than |
half of it. and l have SAID nothing about |
Fayette county, and leave out the frauds in |
the balance of Shelby county, and the several |
hundred Republican voters in the fifth, sew |
enth and tenth wards kept from voting by |
illegal and unnecessary challenging, many of |
whom were standing In line ready to vote |
when the polls were closed, and the other |
frauds in the city.
And do you know that these same frauds at |
Bartlett and elsewhere sent to the legislature |
from this county, IN 1876, delegation of |
eight Members. not one OF whom was elected |
by the people?
Now, l intended to let this matter rest, but |
for your recent reference to it. l have long |
since given up the contest for the seat In |
congress, not feeling it mylduty, or of any ad- |
vantage to the public to carry it on: when no
decision would probably be arrived at during |
the congress, or If arrived at, would likely be |
favorable to me, considering the par
tisan result that has attended in
variably other contests IN the pres
enG congress. NOR nave udu any nope
of inducing Colonel Young to believe he was
not elected, and thereupon retire from his
seat. Colonel Young unquestionaby has
right to his own opinion as to his
election. If l just could get hun to see
the facts as plainly as he sees the outrageous
frauds In Louisiana in the election Of 1876,
by which, as he says in a recent speech de-
liVered in congress, the will of the American
people was defeated, and man never elect
ed was foisted in the Presidential chair,
have his word for tat least l think | could
get lt-he would not return to congress.
''Oh, wad some power the giftie gle u.s.
To see OurSepS as itherS see us"
OF course, however, Colonel Young has the
undoubted right to look into the facts con-
nected with the Louisiana frauds, and not TO
look into those connected with his own cleo
ton, and therefore, not to satisfy himself he
holds his seat without election.
have two objects in writing what l have
written. One is, to correct your mistakes,
Messrs. Editors, in your article, for l do not
believe you wish to misrepresent facts. The
other and more important, is to let the people
know how elections have been carried in the
past, so they may reform the methods for the
fufurp