New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-03-27
ELECTIONS IN MISSISSIPPI.
rur ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CASE.

SAFE GUIDES IN THIS CASE
lBY TELEGRAPH TO TRmUNE.l
WASHINGTON March 26.-The arguments IN inc
contested election case of Lynch against Chalmers
tbe sitting member from the notorious " Shoe
stringn district of Mississippi, have been closed
and il is understood that the report of the SUD-
committec-whch consists of Messrs. Calkins 'char-
mani. Pettibone and Jacobs (Republicans) Jones
(NatlonaD and Atherton (Democrat)-will DC SUD
mttcd to the full Committee on Elections at lts
meeting next Tuesday This is one OF the most I'M
portant contested election cases that has come oe-
fore the House of Representatives In many years.
1t is SO mainly because it raises the question as 10
how far the House. which by the Constitution OF the
limited States is made the Judge of the elections
returns and qualifications Of Its own members, Is
TO he governed IN deciding case of contest by the
construction given by State court to the law OF the
State under and in accordance with when an eec-
tion of Representatives has been held In 1850, few
mon. hs before the election from which this contest
da tes was held a new election law went into force
in the State of Mississippi Among other things IL
prescribed that all ballots shall be on PLAIN whltc
paper of a certain specified size, without any de-
vice OF mark by which one ticket may be known or
distinguished from another" After the election IL
was discovered that each of several thousand Oh
the Republican ballots in the boxes printers
dasb.v one inch long separated the heading, Re
President. James A. Garfield; that a similar
dash separated these last words from the words,
:" For Vice-President, Chester A. Arthur" that
another dash separated these words again from the
names of the candidates for Presidential Electors
and that the Electoral ticket was separated by
another dash from the name of the candidate Tor
Congress, Mr. Lynch. On each of these tickets
therefore there were four printers dashes," such
as are habtualy used by many printers III dong
lob work" rs marks of punctuation. Some OF
the Democratic ballots were also printed i'll SIM
liar manner.
The Election Commissioners Of the County of
Warren, acting under the legal advice OF
General Chalmers'S law partner, threw out 2,029
ballots cast for Lynch, and 20 ballots cast for
Chalmers. on the ground that the printers
dashes mako them illegal under the provision of
the law prohibiting the usc Of any Distinguishing
mark or device" The Inspectors ofElection, who
counted the ballots they came from the boxes,
did not. except in few cases where their attention
was directed to them by some of General Chalmerss
friends, discover these distinguishing " marks
The Election Commissioners of Warren County were
prosecuted for a violation Of law Ill throwing
out these ballots, but they were promptly acquitted
bv Mississippi jury. General Chalmers did not
vet feel safe however, although he had been de-
clared elected by majority ,779 votes or l,750
more than would be necessary to keep HIM III his
seat even with the "marled ballots" counted. lie
evidently feared that his title to the 1709 votes
was not very good, for in his brief filed with the
committee. after quoting the decision of the Su-
preme Court of Mississippi in respect to the
"marked ballots" he says:
We think these points amply sufficient to decide
This case in OF the cOntestec but nasnuch rs raud
has been charged in the notice Of contestant and some
aa Gss f. TGe vish
m 9@s See1 f94ag Salan on Se stump m and # is
claimed because there is large colored IN the
district refutation of this ofrepeated charge We
call attention TO the CnanceTy bill sworn to by the con con
tcstant and exhibited by the record in which lie only
claimed at that time j59 majority.
II was therefore thought necessary by General
Chalmers and his friends that he should fortlfy
himself by a decision of the Supreme Court OF Mis-
sissippi. The Inspectors OF Election had counted
800 ballots for Mr. Lynch, which were similar to
those thrown out in Warren County, and the Com
missioners OF Tunica County had also counted Them
Proceedings in the nature of a mandamus were
brought TO compel the Commissioners to reassemble
and recanvass and reject these marked ballots"
The petition was of course, OverTulcd by the CIR
cult Court of Tunica County, and an appeal was
taken to the Supreme Court of Mississippi. Judge
Morris of Vicksburg. Mr.. Lync's counsel, was re-
queted by General Chalmers to appear before the Su-
preme Court and argue this test case III behalf OF
his client General Chalmers saying that he did not
wish snap judgment" Judge Morris declined for
| several reasons The Chief Justice, he said, was
General Chalmers's brother, and Justice Campbell
had already prejudged the case in written opinion.
Other reasons given as follows:
Justice George had caused it to he announced through
the Democratic partisan press Of the State that he would
short time publish an opinion SaJ g tSpop Spa ui oTt
rejected and refused TO count 2o29 OF LINENS % Hos b
face Of them and it may well be remembered whle
we are upon this subject that this learned gentleman IS
to resign his seat on the Dehch ior seat ~ I'M ,o
United States Senate place TO which he could not nave
been elected except as ore OF the results OF on CIT
ried by the very means by whlcn u u aiGgGu iG g or
Lynch that you elected TO Congress- MS Vhdlca-
tion of Commissioners In throwing out the votes Or
Lynch would seem very material and in perfect Keeping
with his own interests. -. ,.
| may also object on the ground that the sdpreme
Court Of Mississippi as at present constituted Is COM
posed OF Judges who hold their commissions as one 3
active and partsans, and which were noor
ously carried in the state by the same or even mSf a
YOU have risen TO be member of Congress from the
| !" ShOestring District.
| The case was submitted in tho Supreme Court
without brief or oral argument The Court said
that the case presented for adjudication three ques
| tiOns
l. whether the Commissioners OF Election have the
night to reject illegal ballots cast and counted by the In
specos Of Election and returned to them with the state
| ment OF the result at the precincts.
H. whether the ballots which the Commissioners of
Election for nca County refused to reject should have
been rejected By them being illegal for having on
them mark or device by which one may be known
| or distinguished from another.
| III Whether the action OF the Commissioners was
| final or whether they may be required by mandamus
to meet and act in the matter again as the Court may
order.
| The Court remarked. after deciding the first two
questions in the affirmative that it had no jurlsdc-
| ton of them and sustained the demurrer on the
| third point and remarked:
The House of Representatives OF the Congress OF the
United States is the judge Of the election returns ana
qualifications Of its members and the courts OF the
| State have nothing to do with this matter.
The decisions contain several gems OF judicial
nu, hall nt1y