Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-11-23

Mr. Myers said he did not think that the
press dispatches had stated the case fairly
on It's merits; that he had reason te believe
and had been 50 informed, that Gen. Chal.
mers had inspired these statements in his
own interest. The following interview then
took place.
Gould you or not have received az sec.
Ietary oil state an amended return from
late county correcting the alleged error in
The original returns?"
mo, sir; the APPEAL seems 10 be of the
impression that 1 had a right to receive
amended returns from the county of Tate
aud upon them declare a different result.
Under decision Of the Supreme Court OF
the State of Mississippi, in the case OF
Oglesby U.s. Sigman, case reported in IS
Miss. Rep, this point is fully settled. The
Court held that "they (speaking of the COM
missioneIs of election) having made their
canvass and declared the result, and trans.
mltted a statement of it to the secretary Of
state, their connection with the returns
ended; that they were Jtnctus o6icio. This
decision was made a year or so ago pending
Lynch's contest with Chalmers; and b ad the
effect OF preventing Lynch from having
amended returns sent in; and also prevented
him from havl0g recount of the votes from
the TShoe-String' D strict"
"Was the tally-sheet which purported 10
be detailed statement of the vote of Tate
county by precincts a part of the returns
from this countyW
"Unquestionably it was; and in their GER
thcate, which was on the same sheet OF pa
per, the Board of Commissioners certified to
the correctness OF the tally-sheet, showing
| conclusively that their certificate was part
and parcel of the same, and was based upon
said tally.sheet."
"Were you authorized to take testimony
TO prove that there was no such candidate as
| j. Il. ChdDabless in Tate county, and could
you as secretary of state GO behind the re-
| turns or make any corrections whatever in
| the same?"
Il could not. My duties were simply
| ministerial, and l could only count the
votes a. they appeared in the RETURNS"
at seems that in the detailed statement
of votes by precincts the name of j. r.
| CANDLES appears, and in the certificate,
| which you say was part and parcel of the
returns, appears the name of James r. Chal-
meIs. Gould you not have ignored the de-
tailed statement and given the vote 10 James
| r. Chahnere?"
81 could not, for the reason that the GER
| ti6cate appended to the returns certified 10
the correctness of the detailed statement.
Our statute does not provide, in express
| language, how the returns should be made
and in receiving returns j always give the
preference TO the detailed statement, particu-
larly when the certificate SETS forth the fact
10 be that the detailed statement is correct"
"From the press dispatches il appears that
| Gen. Chalmers charges you with having
fraudulently concealed the returns of the
5 .cond District 10 prevent the detection and
correction OF the alleged error by amended
| returns. Is there any foundation for this
| charger"
t-fifJvr,o whatever; the returuz frou, -said
district were not all received until The day
previous to the day fixed for the counting oil
| the votes. / never refused TO allow any enc
to see them. Even had l opened the re-
turns, and submitted them for inspection
after they had been received a; the office Of
the secretary of state, and the discovery had
been made that the Tate county returns were
made out in the name of Chambless, instead
| of Chalmers, it wss then loo late for any
correction 10 be made, if an error existed
This point is fully settled in the case oil
Oglesby us. Sigman; and WIS settled in Gen
Chalmers's interest in his late contest before
Congress-"
"In this decision of the Supreme Court
does the court not hold jurisdiction over this
question of election conIestsp
ait does; and concludes that it is a
question entirely to be settled before the
House OF Representatives. So far as l was
concerned, my individual wishes were not to
be consulted. 1t was plain question Of
| law, and l felt it my duty to make the de.
cision tina, l did. II in making that de-
cision, Gen. Chalmers should be wronged
he has his redress before Congress, where
am informed the case would have ultimately
gone, as Col. Manning was preparing 10 con-
test his right to the seat. This decision
makes Manning contestee instead OF con.
| tes,ani."