The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1882-09-07
Hon. John Paul and the Election Laws

after a word of complaint. We recognize
in him d gentleman of the old school,
welded to traditions, and lOthe to separate
from the influences under which he has
spent 80 much Of his honorable life. But
he does not stop at this simple announce
ment. He proceeds to arraign Capt. Paul
for the votes he cast in Congress upon the
contested election cases, and 80 frames his
complaint rs to do injustice to both himself
and Capt Paul TO himself, in that he
has not fam iliarized himself with the histo-
ry of the contested cases. or Intentionally
mistakes the facts upon which the votes OF
Mr. Paul were predcated. To Capt. Paul
in that he does not give the history OF the
cases or refer to the evidence adduced
before the Committee. He gives six
cases, viz Those of Smith vs.. Shelly, and
Lowe against Wheeler, from Alabama !;
Lynch against Chalmers. from Mississippi;
Mackey against Dibble. and Smalls against
Tilman from South Carolina. and Bisbee
against Finley, from Florida. In each of
these cases the Democrat was ousted from
his seat and his contestant seated /; but in
the case Of Finley Mr.. Paul voted for him,
and not against him as Mr.. Sitlington
| states.
| There were fedrteen contested cases voted
upon, and in eight Of them Mr.. Paul voted
| to seat Democrats, in five of them to seat
| Republicans and in one to seat Green
| hacker. Mr.. Paul was member OF the
| election committee, was sworn to deter
m inc each case upon the law and the evil
| dence, and in obedience to the mandate of
the Constitution. After patient and labo-
rious investigation he, with majority OF
the members of the committee, arrived at
the conclusion that five Republicans. and
one Greenbacker were justly and legally
entitled to seats. Would Mr.. Sitlington
or any other honest man have done other
| wise?
If Mr.. SitliRgton had aimed to do Justice
to Capt Paul. he would not have confined his
statement simply 10 the returns upon which
! the Democrats claimed their seats He
would have followed the evidence and pro-
duced facts and figures to show that In each
case the grosSest and most glaring frauds
were perpetrated, and that Capt. Paul would
have perjHred himself had he not voted to
correct the wrongs thus perpetrsted, as he
regarded them.
In the case Of Smith against Shelly, it
was in evidence THAT in many Of the pre-
cincts where there was large Republican
majority. the democratic inspectors being in
the majority for some unaccOuntable reason
failed to open the polls. The officers failed
which to make returns of the election, leav-
ing everything In charge of the ignorant
and iliterate class recently enfranchished,
leaving them to get together and cast their
ballots as best they could. In this state of
the evidence the committee felt it to be a
duty to count these votes which had been
thus carelessly or criminally suppressed
and give them to the person for whom they
had been east. Having done this there was
no doubt Of the election Of Smith by the
legal voters in that district p There was
no doubt in the mind of every impartial
man familiar with the facts that Shelly
claimed his seat by fraud, and that justice
and law demanded that he should be de-
prived Of it.
In the case 1t Lowe against Wheeler 1t
was shown Ia evidence that at the close Of
the polls there had been cas-: - 1856 ballots
for Lowe and Il, 900 for Wheeler, and that
after these ballots had been duly deposited
by qualified voters, the Democratic inspec-
tors deliberately rejected enough to give
Mr.. Wheeler majority OF 43, and thus &C.
cure him certificate of election. 10 &C.
complish this result SOL legal and formal
ballots cast for Wheeler we're rejected,
without a show OF law or justice to sus-
| lin it.
In the case OF Lynch against Chalmers,
not even the Democrats could defend the
transparent frauds by which Chalmers
claimed his seat. The only argument that
was made for Chalmers was upon the
ground that Congress ought not to 60 be-
hind the certificate. notwithstanding the
| Constitution makes Congress the Judge Of
the election OF its own members. 1t was
| in evidence that over 5000 ballots cast for
Lynch were thrown out simply because they
| had printers dash on the tickets. which,
| II was attempted to construe rs mark or
device to determine the political complex
| ion of the ballot No honest man can for
an instant. after examining critically the
case, determ inc otherwise than that Capt.
| Paul voted correctly when he sustained
the claim Of Lynch.
In the South Carolina cases of Mackey
| against Dibble and SmAlls against Tilman,
| there was no attempt made 10 conceal the
| fact that the most unblushing frauds had
| been committed. In Mackey's ease, even
the Democratic managers gave him ma
iority of s79. after rejecting eleven polls
which gave Mackey 5,8S2 and his Demo-
cratic opponent S95. There we're discov-
cred, also. $3.50 Democratic ballots Of the
tissue stripe in excess OF the entire regis
tered vote. and to bring the ballots down
to the registered list. the process OF pulling
out was resorted to, which caused the large
Republican tickets to be extracted and the
small tissue Democratic tickets to be left
in. A fair count would have given Aackey
over 200 majority, and yet the Demo-
cratic inspectors trumped up a majority for
his opponent Of 1856.
A similar state Of things WAC exposed in
the case of Smalls against Tilman. In
deed Mr. Tilman did not attempt to defend
his case upon its legal merits. He boldly
declared that the white people of South
Carolina intended to control their elections
in defiance OF numbers. and gave fair warn
ing to Congress that he intended to come
back at the next election, regardless Of the
popular vote against him.
In the other case mentioned by Mr.. Sit
lington, that OF Bisbee against Finley,
Capt. Paul had doubts as to the election Of
Bisbee, and east his vote for Finley, mas
much az he held the certificate, although
it was not demonstrated claim OF justice
and law. according to the judgment OF some
of the ablest and purest members Of Con.
gress.
1t was not our purpose to notice Mr.. Sit
lington' e statement, for we believed that
sho ;ntol1;uoot ,onplo - h;c .1;.tr:nt ,vo,1l