The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1882-12-27
MCKINLEY WINS.

The Canvassing Board, consisting of
Governor Foster and Secretary Town
send, in the presence Of Auditor of State
OgleVee, and Attorney General Nash, ,ex-
amined the returns from the Eighteenth
Congressional District on the 9TH inst,
and awarded the certificate of election
to the 18th Congress IT, Major Mckinley
by one vote, They counted for
VIM. Mckinley jr........ 1896
Jonathan III. Wallace. .... 16,S9S
Jonathan Wallace. ....
j. I'll. Wallace. e............ 2-16,905
Majority for Mckinley, 1
The Board refused to count for Mr..
Wallace the votes cast for John II. Wal
lace 4; Major Wallace 4; w. H. Wallace
2; W. w. Wallace l, and Wallace 8. EY-
identity had the instruction as to the
manner of counting votes, given by At
tOrney General Nash, to the MahOning
county election trustees, been observed
by the Board, Mr.. Wallace would have
received the certificate. In reply to an
ihquiry, Mr.. Nash telegraphed as fol-
lows:
COLUMBUS, Oct. IL, 1882.
DISNEY ROGERS, ESQ.,:
When the intent of the voter is evil
dent, it should be carried out. Votes cast
for "Wm. Kinley" should be counted for
VIM. Mckinley jr., apd votes cast for "J.
III. Wallace" should be counted for JON
athan III. Wallace.
GEO. K. NASH,
Attorney General.
1t is possible the Board were not salts
fed that those voting for John II. Wal
lace" and "MajOr Wallace" intended to
vote for Jonathan III. Wallace. If so,
they cided cOnscientiOusly, and accOr-
ding 10 the stricr letter of the Attorney
Generals direction.
But the only trouble in thej way is,
when the Secretary of State was asked:
Are you satisfied in your own mind
that the votes cast for John II. Wallace,
etc, were intended for Jonathan II. Wal
lacep' He is reported to have said,
Yes, morally, am There seems to
be difference between a moral and pO-
litical satisfaction.
Again, the Board awarded in the 10Th
district, to
A. j. Warner Observation-Disclosures. 10, ,454
Andrew j. Warner. 3,285
1879
That count elected A. j. Warner over
his competitor, Mr.. Dawes, by 691 ma
jOrity. But Warmers name was not An
drew at all, but is "AdOniram." But
the Board in this case believed the cleo
tors in Monroe county, who voted for
Andrew j. Warner, intended to vote for
AdOniTam j. Warner, and counted their
votes accordingly; but the men who vO-
ted in COlumbiana county for John I'll.
Wallace, they did not believe Intended
TO vote for Jonathan II. Wallace, and
therefore disfranchised them, and give
Mckinley the certificate with a majOri-
ty of 10 scattering wallace" votes
against him.
The Republican has from the first ia
ken the position that the 18th district
H.ITg ,Nnwv ,nN
his seat in Congress by a mere technic-
ality, if he is not the real intended
choice of a majority of the voters of this
district. This is not a question between
Republican and Democratic parties
alone, but one of representative govern
ment "Of the people, by the people, and
for the people," If we fail to respect
the voice of the independent voters of
this country, our civil and free institu-
tiOns are at an end, and the Liberties of
the many surrendered to the will of the
few. Are the people ready for that con-
ditiOn of thngs2 We say mol
We base these conclusions on the At
tOrney Generals instruction to MahOn-
ing county.
The Supreme Court will try a test
question now before it, which will prob
ably settle all the disputes arising from
the late election. All that the people
want is honest fairness, and let cOnse-
quences take care of themselves. Mr..
Mckinley says he has evidence not yet
produced that-will satisfy Congress he
Is entitled TO hold to his certificate,
from having actually received decided
majority of the votes cast. If so, all
right. All any one desires is to know
that the right man who was the choice
of the people of the 18th district will
represent them in Congress. OF that
they must be satisfied, or the future will
bring trOuble.-SaIem Republican.