Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1879-01-17
SOUTH CAROLINA.
e. w. M. Mackey Makes Out
the Republican Case.
Claring Frauds-HOw the Democrats
Destroyed Republican Votes.
CnAnLEsroN. s. G.. Dec. 81. 1878.

In your issue of the 26th inst, appear num-
ber Of letters from prominent Democrats Of
this State in regard to the late election. All
of the letters are from residents of the First
Congressional District, except one from Mr.
NJ. Z. O'Connor, who claims to have been
elected over me from this district--the Sec
ond. As Mr.. O'Connor's letter was evidently
written in response to the charge made by me
that gross frauds were committed throughout
this district at the last election, | respectfully
request the privilege OF replying to It, and in
so doing | shall not only endeavor TO establish
the fact that frauds sufficient to change the
entire result of the election, were committed
but | shall also endeavor to satisfy every ur-
biased mind that the defense set up by Mr..
O'Connor in his letter is evasive and incapa-
BILE of standing the test of investigation.
In published letter under date Nov. Z,
1873, | charged, inter ala, that the ballot
boxes In the two voting precincts of Ward 3,
in this city, had been stuffed with Democratic
tickets, printed on very small slips of tissue
paper in diamond type; In one case with over
400 tickets, and in the other with over 200,
aud these two polls thus made to give Mr..
! O'Connor majority of 4 ,392 out OF vote Of
| 5,556-the total vote at one poll being 1860,
| and at the other 1857. To vote 1860 or even
| l,9o7 persons at any one poll during the tw5lye
| hours, or 20 minutes, the polls were open, l
declared to be a physical impossibility where
the managers swore each voter separately, and
in many cases consumed three or four minutes
questioning some voters and occupied con-
siderable time in challenging and rejecting
others. In endeavoring to explain how it was
possible to vote such numbers MIR. OConnor
asserts that the managers swore I" half dozen
or more voters at the same time" While in
one or two instances-very rare, however-the
managers may have sworn two or three voters
at one time, challenge Mr.. OConnor to pro-
| duce single reliable witness who Will testify
| that the managers as a rule, swore "half a
dozen or more voters at the same time" As
a matter of fact, nine-tenths of the persons
voting at the two precincts in question were
sworn separately.
for the enormous vote at these two precincts
in Ward by saying that the access to the
| polls in Wards l, 2, ), Z and was choked up
| with a stream of negroes throughout the en-
| tire day, rendering it almost impossible for IA
white Democrat to reach the boxes in either
of these wards and vote. This necessitated a
| very large number of Democrats living in the
| precincts that were thus blocked to repair to
| Ward and there cast their ballots" If Mr.
| O'ConuOr's explanation be true, that it was
| almost impossible for a white Democrat
to reach the polls in either Wards l, 2, 5, Z
or s, because access to them was chOked by a
| stream of negroes, which he declares, in this
| connection, was the "enemy's plan OF battle" 7"
how then will he account for the fact that at
| Ward poll the Democrats received 541 ma
| iority; at Ward poll, 625 majority; at Ward
| 3 poll, 242 majority; while at Ward poll they
cast 442 votes out of 500, or nearly one-half !;
and at Ward poll, they cast 323 out of 1S0.
| Either Mr. OConnOr's assertion in regard TO
| the polls being blocked up is without the
slightest foundation in fact, or, if it be true,
| then it is conclusive evidence that the mana
| gers at the polls in Wards 5, and s committed
great frauds in returning such large Demo
cratic majorities at polls where, according to
Mr.. OConnor it was almost impossible for a
white Democrat to reach the boxes and
vote" Mr.. O'Connor and the Democratic
managers at those polls can settle the ques-
ton whether the statement of the former is
correct or the returns of the latter are false.
| While frauds were committed at the polls in
Wards 5, Z and 8, as l shall prove further on,
yet the truth is that the access to neither
these nor those. in Wards | and were choked
up by negroes so as to prevent the Democrats
from reaching the boxes and voting, but, on
the contrary, at each one of them, excepting
Ward 3 where the falling-of was about the
same on both sides, the Democrats voted their
full strength. AT Ward l the Democratic
vote was about the same as it was in 1876; in
Ward it was 15l more than in 1876; in Ward
Z it was 357 more, and in Ward ASP more.
II, then, the Democrats at three out of the
| five polls mentioned by Mr.. OConnor cast a
| larger vote than they ever did before, and at
another about the same vote as last year, how
can he reconcile his statement that they were
| forced to repair to Ward 3 to vote with the
fact that the Democratic vote was largely in
creased in these very wards!
| Another proof, If Mr.. OCOnnor's assertions
| be true, that the managers at the polls in
| Wards 3, Z, and committed gross frauds in
! swelling the Democratic vote ut these polls be.
| yond what was honestly and actually cast
And this is just what the managers did, as
will presently show. But even deducting the
amount of tissue-ballots stuffed in the ballots,
the Democratic vote actually cast at these
| three polls was about the same as it was in
| 1876, showing conclusively that large numbers
of Democrats were not forced to repair tc
| Ward 3 TO vote, and the attempt to explain
| the enormous vote of that ward upon any
such theory will not bear examination. Ever
were we to admit that, instead of large mum
| bers, every Democrat who voted in 1876 at the
polls in Wards l, 2, 5, Z, and s, with those who
also voted in Ward 3, cast their ballots this
year at the two precincts in Ward 3, yet the
| combined Democratic vote of these six wards
| including Ward as cast in 1876, is actually
| less than the Democratic vote cast there this
year. So much for the frauds at these two
| precincts, for which some better explanation
| must be found by those who desire to apollo
gize for them than the one offered by Mr.
I O'Connor But these were not the only polls
| in the city of Charleston at which frauds were
committed. At the First Precinct of Ward 4
and at the polls in Wards ., Z, and s. the bal
| lot-boXes were stuffed with the same kind OF
tissue-tickets as were used in Ward 3.
At Ward poll the ballots in the box ex
| ceeded the names on the managers poll-lis
| by over l25. This the Democratic managers
themselves will not deny. This excess was
| caused by the tissue-ballots which had been
stuffed into the box, and in consequence OF
this excess thus fraudulently created a mum
Der of ballots equal to the amount of the eX
cess were drawn out and destroyed. Two
thirds of the ballots drawn out and destroyed
were Republican tickets which had been law
| fully voted. In their place were counted the
| tissue-ballots which had been surreptitiously
placed in the box. BY this means the Repub
| lican vote actually cast was reduced by ovel
100, and the Democratic vote increased TO the
same extent. At Ward Z, Poll 4l6, tissue
ballots were stuffed in the box, aud although
! numerous false names were placed on the poll
list in order to make it correspond with the
number of ballots stuffed in the box, yet al
the close Of the poll there were forty-two mere
ballots in the box than there were names OF
the falsfed poll-list. At Ward poll there
were 49l more tickets In the box than there
were names on the Supervisors poll-list. Not
withstanding this discrepancy, all the ballot
| found in the box were counted, and the poll
list of the managers afterward made to CORE
| spond. Among the ballots counted were eX
actly 500 tissue ballots which had been fraudu
lently placed in the box.
At the First Precinct Of Ward there wert
1923 tissue ballots stuffed in the box, and II
| endeavOring TO insert names on the pOll-lis
for the ballots thus stuffed in th'
| box seFenty-two more names were in
serted on the list than there wer,
ballots in the box. At the four precincts jus
| mentioned, together Win Jne Two precincts II
Ward 3, the number of small tissue ballot
stuffed into the ballot-boxes was over 5000
by which means the vote of Charleston Cit,
was swollen TO Is, 53S, including the S65 vote
cast at the Washington engine-house, whicl
were not counted because OF the destruction
of the ballot-box. In order to prove that thi
excessive vote was not the result of fraud
| Mr.. O'COnnor asserts that "the vote of tn,
city in the last election is very nearly the sami
that It was in 1876, the difference being verl
slight one way or the other,n AS the vote o
the city in 1876 was 1885 lfor Presidential
Electors) the slight difference consists in thu
vote this year being 3l52 more than it wa
then-an increase of over twenty-five pc
cent. Knowing that the figures would no
support his statement that the vote OF the cit,
this year was very nearly the same as in 1876
Mr. O'Connor adds that "in view of the yer,
large influx of negroes from the country I
was to be expected that the city vote would b.
swollen above the usual proportions" Ha'
the 200 negroes from St. Andrews and st
FN..a ffnN ODD