Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-11-25

county at the election held November :, 1saz, Ior
candidates for Cengress u " Hs, ~ 49, 49,
surPiusage.
Section al, above quoted, requires The
,oysrnor TO give the certificate of
election TO that man whom the
secretary has declared has received
the highest number If votes. He has
DO AUTHORITY TO question the return OF the
sScretary, and must, under Inc law, act upon
it and give the Commission In accordance
with il.
If am correct in concluding that the
a,silvn was the return, and that the Law and
the oath required the secretary te Re gov
ernsd solely By the return, the
Commissioned OF Tate did GER
Nv to him that IE7SS Votes were
cast for CCn..amDless, and he did right in
, eounipg them accordingly. The reasons
which | have suggested are conclusive 10 nay
mind in favor OF the correctness OF the secre-
JARVIS action. However this may be, Ger
t4i1ly no caniid mind can deny that an
bonest inquirer after truth might reach the
Conclusion indicated, and all would admit
that tie Governor did only his plain and i'm
peratiye duty in Issuing The certi6-
cate TO Mr. Manning on the secretary's
declaration. l willingly grant that the
APPEAL has ALWAYS bsttled for what it be-
Iieysd right, and claim that Robert Lowry
our bonored governor, and q. G. Myery,
our faithful and efficient secretary of state,
by lives of integrity and fidelity, upon which
there is no blot or stain, by the confidence
which MissisEippians yield to them, have
the right 10 claim that you shall believe that
tbev. in this matter, have done what they be-
lieved TO be Just and right. No one csa
blame them for executing the statute law of
Mississippi, even though in this instance we
may believe that justice may be advanced
BY disregard of the law they have under
taken to execute. And now having glanced
at the law in the case, let's take a broader
view and see If upon the merits wrong has
been done.
Every fair-m inded man must admit that
If Chalmers was elected he otght 10 have his
seat; that the popular will should be obeyed.
and that voters should have their ballots
properly counted despite clerical errors of
election officials; and that 4 Democratic
Congress cannot sfford-and should not if il
coult-to give to Manning a seat which
the people gave to Chalmers. But by grant
ing these very familiar and universally ac-
copied truths, we do not concede that Justice
was inundated when, in compliance with
law, Gov. Lowry gave the certificate OF election
TO Mr.. Manning. Mr.. Manning, utterly ig-
norant of the matter in the Tate county re-
turns, and conceding to Chalmers that vote,
still claimed that he was in truth and in
fact legally elected, and was preparing TO
vindicate that claim ia a contest. He was.
and is, accommodating evidence TO prove that
more Than that number of votes for Chal-
mers we're purchased with Jay HubbeIPs
corruption fund. Henderson boosted on the
streets OF Washington tive weeks before The
election that bis committee were going 10
pull Chslmers through, and that Manning
would be surprised at the DEVELOPMENTS in
his district within the next few days.
Shred anu experienced politicians were
given Federal appointments at hish salaHies,
with no other known duty than that of en-
gineering campaigns. Every Federal Office
holder IN the district was required to work
Tor Chalmers, or step down and out Chai-
mers himself inspired and superintendent the
printing of instructions to Federal supervisors
OF election SO msniftsly Intended to
intimidate State election officials, and
20 directly aimed at the integrity OF
State law, that the governor of Mis-
sissippi deemed it his duty 10 issue
ins reactions to his officers and promise them
protection in the faithful discharge OF their
duties. In defisnce OF all law, deputy United
States marshsls-aud many OF them import
ed from the Fourth Distrct-were spread
over this district on election day a; every
polling place, with instructions 10 arrest any
who might, in their judgment, violate the
law. Manning would not hold a seat in
Congress in defiance of the popular will, nor
claim title which rested for validity, in whole
or in part, upon clerical error. The very law
which left the secretary no discretion, but
obliged him to count returns as made, and
thus prevented Manning from establishing
mis- right to the certificate by proof OF these
facts, before the secretary fortunately
required the governor, upon their face, 10
give him the certificate. The question is,
shall Manning yield his claim TO an election
because an alleged clerical error secured
him certificate which otherwise money and
Federal interference would have secured 10
Chalmers.
If he can not NAL Ike proof OF the facts on
which he relies, l agree that a democratic
Congress should turn him out. If he can
make such proof, do you, or does any fair
minded man think a Democratic Congress
would err in permitting him TO keep his
seat? Would it not be well 10 hear proof
before condemning Mr.. Manuing's title?
JUSTICE.