The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1879-10-02
Yafssrellanep1ts.
5tElE ASsACH USETTs INyEsTI-
NGATION.

x. a...E as a'f.f cfAAAONA' "a
4AW NJ @l ss-.---F~- n
we print this morning an exhaustive
and comprehensive SUMMARY OF the evil
denc6 taken before tho Wallace investi'
Rsting committee. The Republican pa
psrs Of this State almost without excep-
ton, have asserted that there is nothing
III the Investigation, and that there Is
nothing ID the evidence which shows
that any iiligihmate influence has been
introduced into the politics Of this State,
or anything tending to impair a fair and
free ballot We submit that the evil
dence ,Dr0ges exactly the contrary
ThA evidence itself may be divided
into ~ en parts, to.wit: the testimony
safslalion to the need of Federal inter
fep in Massachusetts,, the case OF
ManCbaug ,,the cases of Webster and
D60glas; the cases Of Chelsea and Gard.
ner the case of Plymouth, the custom
house and tie rebutting evidence.
An relation to federal interference, the
evidence shows that it was practiCed to
s6Fpe extent in this State, though not to
such an extent as TO make it particularly
onerOus or altogether disgraceful, as it
was in many other States. The evidence
further shows on this point that it ls the
opinion Of the supervisor and otEer Off
Cials directly interested in the supervis-
ors' law, that there is no need of federal
interference in Massachusetts elections
and no trouble in securing free and fair
sleCtions without such interference.
The Manchaug affair is clear case Of
intimidation of the meanest and most
dangerous sort. The evid enCe shows
cODclusively that a large manufacturing
corporation sought to control directly the
votes of it's wage people by threatening
them with loss of work, by refusing them
the use of the Town Hall, by discharging
from it's employ men who voted against
its wishes, by seeking to drive such men
from the town, by forcing it's employees
TO vote under its own eyes, by supplying
them with Republican ballots bearing
private marks and placed in envelopes,
by forcibly taking Butler ballots from
the hands of it's employees, and by open
threats and bribery.
In Chelsea the evidence shows a case
Of attempted intimidation which was
open and barefaced, and was followed by
the punishment threatened the moment
it became known that the Colored en-
ploye had not voted in accordance with
the command Of his employer. In Gard.
ner the evidence shows that an agent
was operating in that town with plenty
of money, who openly sought to buy
votes, and asserted that his money came
from National bank.
In the Plymouth case the evidence
shows an actual occurrence, which SIM
ply is q disgrace to the State of Massa.
chusetts. 1t is proven by the record of
the court itself that superior court in
the State of Massachusetts naturalized
native.born citizen as a condition preCe.
dent to voting, and that the authorities
of that town insisted upon such natural.
iZation before they would permit ma
tive-born citizen of Massachusetts to cast
q vote for Gen. Butler There is no pos.
sibility of disproviDg this fact. 1t must
stand as fact, and shows degree of
ignorance and intolerance, or both, for
which no excuse can be offered, and
which, if generally practiCed, would ut.
terly destroy free ballot here or else.
where.
The testimony in regard to the ad-
of our custom. house shows
that Republican collector dismissed
large number of excellent officers and
Ok. Union soldiers without apparent ex-
suse, cause or justification. 1t is true
that the collector swears on his oath, that |
political considerations had nothing to do |
With these changes, but the public will |
hardly be fully convinced by his state.
ment in view of the facts.
10 rebuttal is mass of testimony that |
Is wholly irrelevant, and does not touch |
The facts proven. There are plenty of
sweeping denials on the part of the mill
owners, prominent Republicans and in
,erested parties, to the effect that only !
Legitimate influence" was sought to be |
lsed, but there is no evidence contro.
verting the main facts proven, as stated |
Ibove. In the absence of such evidence,
he testimony showing intimidation, ILL |
Ultimate influence and bribery must be |
aiken as true, and no mere general deni.
Ila on the part of interested parties can |
the force or destroy the effect |
If this evidence.-BOston Globe.