The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1880-12-02
THE SIXTH DISTRICT.
Gen. Chalmers Reply to the Memphis
Appeal.
Memphis Appeal. ]

at Appeal.
e Memphis Appeal.
u In answer to the structures ofthe Appeal.
e the action of the election commissioners
g throwing out votes in several counties of Il
Sixth Congressional District of Mississippi
l. we make room for letter from Gener
L James R. Chalmers. and an argument /
e Mr.. Marshall, chairman of the Democrat
8 Executive Committee of the District,
r follows:
!. LETTER OF GENERAL JAMES R. CHALMER
: EDITORS APPEAL-It is a well>knov
T fact that the Vicksburg Herald opposed m
! denomination to Congress; refused to al
nounce my name as the Democratic cand
, date after the nomination published til
, speech and slanderous letter of my oppoI
{ ent during the canvass, and as soon as tn
election was over began to charge fraud an
corruption against the election commission
ers of his district for doing what they BE-
| lieved to be their duty. | was not sur
prised at this, coming from the Herald, Blu
felt that the assaults of the Vicksburg Her
aid and of the New York Tribune were tn
surest and best means of securing me tn
good will and support of all the honest Dem
ocrats in my District But when the An
peal accepts the statements of the Herald a
facts, and re-echoes its sentiments it become
a serious matter in my estimation. / senC
you the address, of the chairman of tn,
| Executive Committee of the Sixth Con
gressional District, which, in my judgment
fully vindicates the action of the Warner
county commissioners of elections. | NIGH
add that this is the opinion of number o.
other and able lawyers in Mississippi, bu
since you have so broadly asserted that stnt
man, or any body of men under any pre-
tense have a right to throw out or cast
aside even one vote in any election"
| hesitate to present the opinions of lawyers
against this pronunciamento of the press.
So far as the figures presented by the Vicks-
| burg Herald, are concerned, l do not know
whence they came. They were no doubt
obtained by Mr.. Lynch from his friends in
the different counties, and furnished by him
to his friend, the Vicksburg Herald, and
they may be correct, but l doubt it. They
do dot appear thus on the record at Jack
son. You may, perhaps, think it pre-
sumptlous in me, after your broad delclara-
ton against any power to throw out illegal
ballots, to give you any of the reasons why
some of the boxes were not counted; but as
| know you will give me a fair hearing, and
that you will publish this address | send,
and also this letter, | will give a specimen of
the reasons why some of the boxes were not
counted. | am informed that three boxes
in Issaquena county were not counted be-
cause there was no list of the names of
the voters given, as required by law, and no
statement of the general result of the vote;
and it was found that there was more ballots
in each box than it was claimed had been
cast and at one precinct it was shown that
a steamboat had landed, and the whole crew
voted without registration and without any
authority of law. In Washington county
one box was seized by Republican United
States supervisor, and the judges of election
refused to proceed any further with the cleo
ton, and the commissioners refused to re-
ceive the box from a supervisor who had i'm
properly taken and held it. These facts l
learned from friends in these counties. |
have not heard from all the counties, but |
see from returns filed in Jackson, that no
box was thrown out, or not counted, except |
upon some legal grounds openly assigned by
the commissioners at the time. This should
protect them from the charges of fraud and
corruption that have been made against
them. As to the Rodney box in Jefferson
county, alleged to have "shot-g unned," Mr..
Lynch's friends claim that it stood 23S for
Lynch and 80 for Chalmers. A letter re-
ceived by me to-day from a friend in that
county, says ~ believe that box was cap
-ured by Lynch men, because they knew
you had carried the county by large ma
ority. Giving Lynch the Rodney box you
nave $50 majority. Why should any Demo>
erat be such fool as to do such a trick?'
But l am most astnnished, and feel most ag-
,rieved, by the concluding sentence of your
editorial of the nineteenth instant. You say
But it is not alone the voters who have
been ruthlessly DISTINGUISHED in this way
hat are 'bulldozed,' but the people of the
whole South, who, did the Appeal and all
Ill the papers of the South not promptly
protest against it, would be shamed into alb
ect silence by proofs so overwhelming as
hose the Vicksburg Herald furnishes"
This implies that the Democrats of the
ixth district of Mississippi are bringing
hame and disgrace upon the South. / was
lot surprised at this coming from the Her
Id, but did not expect from the Appeal.
According to the figures given by the Her.
Id and yourself, in a district where the Re-
ublicans claimed Is, 900 majority, you show
hat Lynch would only beat me by about
90 votes, if all the pretended ballots claim
d for him were counted. 1t is well known
hat more leading colored men were openly
Importing me, on the stump and at the polls,
han any other Democrat in the South, and
fter such race in such a district, and |
fter many white men were paralyzed by the
indiana defeat, did not believe the APP !
cal would charge that l and my friends
'ere bringing shame upon the South. No {
allot can be called a vote unless cast in ac-
Ordance with law, and according to the votes
etermined to be legal by the election Off
ers authorized to decide that question, l '
as elected by 3777 majority. If this count +
contested, propose to show that by l
roper and strict construction of the law,
[r. Lynch did not receive a single legal +
ote in the district; and that the United /
tates supervisors, in open and shameless a
collation. of the very essence of voting by
allot stood at the polls and wrote down a
lch mans name and how he voted, as the 0
allots were deposited in the box. If on $
lch contest Republican congress have e
les hardihood to unseat me, they can do so,
ut am not yet prepared to believe they
ill so far violate every principle of law.
respectfully,
JAMES r. CHALMERS.
ICKsBURG, November 20, 1880.