Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1880-08-14
Card from Maj. Webb, No. 2.

ton was not intended to provoke q newspa-
per controversy, nor do I now wish to
engage in one. But the people of Knox
county have a right to know how their
public officers execute the high trusts
placed in their hands. Mr., Reeder being
public officer, his acts as such are public
property, and are legitimate subject Of
discussion and criticism. His article in
your issue of this morning seems to invite
such discussion and criticism, and I am
willing that the public shall have the
fullest light on the subject.
Now, my contention in my former article
was that Mr.. Reeder had counted Mr.. Cos
sett in, contrary to the face Of the election
| returns, and stated the facts upon which
nv claim was based. There were Just two
ways by which Mr.. Reeder could answer
this charge. One was to deny the facts
stated by me, and show them to be f4lse.
The other was, to dodge the issue and at
tempt to divert the public attention from
| #. Mr.. Reeder has not even denied
single fact stated by me, except one, and
thai is. he says ''Mr. Webb's statement
that the tally marks plainly counted I39
votes for Anderson in the lst ward is not
true-as to the plainly" But he
admits that ''if all the dots and marks
| on one OF lie SneeLs are counted, Lney 90
count 139. So, while admitting that this
tally sheet does count 139 for Anderson,
he denies that 1t does so plainly" Wheth-
or | am right or he is right can only be
| determined by an inspection Of the tally
sheet, and persons who have any doubt
must inspect this sheet. So much for The
only denial made by Mr.. Reeder.
| How then does Mr.. Reeder meet the
point of contention2 My claims was that
| - b,d cd 10 fana Of ha rofurpc
and counted Anderson out and Gossett in,
upon evidence outside of the returns, and l
gave the facts upon which the claim was
| based. These facts, if true, establish my
PROPOSITIONS as correct. Mr.. Reeder fails
to deny any of the facts, except as before
stated, and they must be taken as true,
and it stands established certainly as to the
| 9th and 9Th wards, as to which there is no
Genial. that Mr.. Reeder did disregard the
face of the returns, and count Anderson
out and Gossett in, upon extrinsic evil
| dence.
But Mr.. Reeder's article artfully lodges
| this, the only issue between US, and still
insists on going outside of the returns aud
getting statements from persons In the lst
| and 9Th wards to show how the vote was in
those wards, and he brings forward those
outside statements as evidence that he
went by the face Of the returns, when the
| returns themselves are the only evidence
he could rely on of that fact.
This artful lodging diseloses to my mind
the paternity of Mr.. Reeder's communion
ton, and l am confident Mr.. Reeder is not
the father of it.
In the case of the state VS.. M. J, Wright
which was a case from Shelby county, and
is reported in 10th Heskell, our supreme
court held that the returning officer OF an
election was "a mere ministerial OH Ger;
he is not vested with judicial powers to
correct errors and mistakes II or
to pass upon any disputed fact which may
effect the result. He IS to ascertain and
declare the result as shown by such re-
turn" Again, the court say: The re-
turning officer may be a witness of the
frauds and Irregularities which would in
validate the election but he can not JUDI &c
of them" When Mr.. Reeder was count
ing the vote in the court house, on Monday.
he told me that he had read this decision
'clean through" and understood that he
could not go behind the return. Now, in
the face of all this, Mr.. Reeder did not de-
eide according to: the face of the returns,
but went outside of these returns.
As before stated, Mr.. Reeder lodges this
issue and attempts to show, by state
ments and evidence procured yester-
day, and which do not appear
upon the returns, how the election actually
did go in the first and eighth wards. ]
matters have nothing to do with the con-
troversy, but l deem it best to meet Mr..
Reeder upon this ground also, and to give
the public some further light on this mat
ter. Mr.. Reader says: II called to-day
aug. 1ltn) upon VIM. G.. McAdoo, jr.
the principal clerk of the election in the
! first ward, and an Anderson man, and ht
furnished me the following statement.
here give the certificate of the judges anC
clerks of the first ward:
Then follows the certificate to the return:
of election, signed by the clerks, judges
and officer of that ward, but it will be OBJ
server that this certificate is dated August
9th, 1880. 1t is copied from the certificate
on the returns now in the clerks Office l;
it inserted in Mr.. Reeders article at this
|, point and in this connection, in order tC
mislead, and create the impression that
this is a certificate given to him by the
officer, judges and clerk, on yeSterday
There is no reason for its insertion at all.
admitted that there was such certificate
{ Now, here give the certificate of two Of
| the judges of election in the first ward
which explains exactly how the original
certificate happened to be made, shows thai
, the vote actually cast for Mr.. Anderson
, was 139. just as the tally sheet showed.
: L was one of the judges of the election
t in the 1st ward on Auz ust 9th, 1880, anc
2 watched the count of the vote, anc
watched w. II. McAdOO, Jr., one OF Ln'
clerks, take the vote down on his tally
j sheet as they were called out. For tht
, first five votes for Anderson, Swan anC
S Reeder, Mr.. McAdoo made five perpen
ocular marks opposite the name of each o
the candidates. When the sixth vote TO
these candidates was called, Mr.. McAdot
4 made tally mark across these five perpen
" dicular marks, so that six votes were &C
n tuaily included in this first tally. j callet
r the attention of the judges to the fact tina
l. Mr.. McAdoo had made five marks AM
~ tailed with the sixth and I in
- structed Mr.. McAdoo that in the future h
must make four marks and tally with tn
e. fifth. When the counting was over an
70 we came to foot up the tallies, thew wer
K. counted by fyes. and the tally containin
Of the six votes was counted .tive, instead
st SIR By this counting the tallies footed u
g 1873 for Anderson. We had all lost sight
ppt the fact that the first tally contained 81
i votes, and this is how it happened that
IS the original certificate sent up by US, Al
=" derson's vote was given as 1873, but tt
ass tally sheet showed 139. Mr.. Reed
a asked me how this matter was on Monds
ct, evening about 6 o'clock, and then e.
SH Pialned 1t to him, just as .have explsine
m above. Again, Mr.. Reeder came
. me ABOUT O clock yesterday evening al
wanted me to sign paper he had. / the
explained this matter to him again ar
IF declined to sign the paper.
handled and inspected every tick
! that was taken out of the ballot box ar
counted, and to the best of my knowIedo
every ticket had the name of a candida
:. for sheriff on il" as - &
a.. j. B. DAVIS.
al August 18th, 1880.