The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1882-12-06

press dispatches had stated the case fafrIv On
its merits; that he had reason to believe,
and had been 50 informed, that General ChaI.
mers had inspired these statements in his
own interest The following interview then
took place:
"Could you not have received, as Score
tary of State, an amended return from Tate
county, correcting the alleged error in the
original returns?
!" No, sir; the Appeal seems to be of the
impression that / had right to receive
amended returns from the county Of Tate,
and upon them declare different result.
Under decision of the Supreme Court of
Mississippi, in the case Of 0glesby vs. Sig
man, q case reported in So Miss Rep, this
point is fully settled, The Court held that
they Speaking of the commissioners Of cleo
tion) having made their canvass and de-
clarad the result, and transmitted q state
ment of it to the Secretary of State, their
connection with the returns ended that
they were fttactus o5fcio. This decision was
made year or so ago, pending Lynch's
contest with Chalmers; and had the effect
of preventing Lynch from having recount
of the votes from the Shoe String Dis
trict"
"Wss the tally sheet which purpOrted to
be detailed statement of the vote OF Tate
county by precincts a part of the returns
from this county?
Unquestionably it was; and in their
certificate, which was on the same sheet OF
paper, the board of commissioners certified
to the correctness of the tally sheet, show
ing conclusively that their certificate was
part and parcel of the same, and was based
on said tally sheet"
"Were you authorized to take testimony
to prove that that there was no such candi-
date as j. r. Chambless in Tate county,
and did you, as Secretary of State, go be
hind the returns or make any corrections
whatever in the same?"
:" ] could not. My duty was simply min
isterial, aud could only count the votes as
they appeared in the returns"
" 1t seems that in the detailed statement
of votes by precincts the name Of ]. h.
Chambless appears, and in the certificate,
which you say, was part and parcel of the
returns, appears the name of J. Il. Chal-
mers. Could you not have ignored the de-
tailed statement and given thc vote to J. K.
Chalmers 2"
II could not, for the reason that the GER
tifcate appended to the returns certified to
the correctness of the detailed statement.
Our statute does not provide, in express
language, how the returns should be made
and in receiving returns l always give the
preference to the detailed statement, par
ticularly when the certificate sets forth the
fact to be that the detailed statement is
correct"
"From the press dispatches it appears
that General Chalmers charges you with
having fraudulentIy concealed the returns
of the Second District to prevent the detec-
ton and correction of the alleged error by
amended returns. Is there any foundation
for this chargep
None whatever; the returns from said
district were not all received until the day
previous to the day fixed for the counting
of the votes. rever refused to allow any
one to see them. Even had l opened the
returns, and submitted them for inspection
after they had been received at the Office of
the Secretary of State, and the discovery
had been made that the Tate county re-
turns were made out in the name of Cham
bless, instead of Chalmers, it was then too
late for any correction to be made, if an
error existed. This point is fully settled
in the case of Oglesby VS.. Sigman /; and was
settled in General Chalmers interest in his
late election contest before Congress"
'In this decision Of the Supreme Court, |
does the court not hold jurisdiction over
this question of the election contests p
at does; and concludes that it is
a question entirely to be settled before
the House of Representatives. So far
as was concerned, my individual wishes
were not to be consulted. 1t was
plain question of law, and felt it my duty
to make the decision that l did. If, in
making that decision, Gen. Chalmers
should be wronged, he has his redress be-
fore Congress, where, l am informed, the
case would have ultimately gone, as Col.
Manning was preparing to contest his right
to the seat The decision makes Manning
contestee instead of contestant"