New-York tribune., 1882-04-20
ELECTION METHODS.
TOW AN ELECIioN WAS CARRIED-REsULIs "f ~
vEsTIGATION IN THE CASE OF SMITH A"AiNS
surrrry ~ THE IyIH DISTRICT

SHELLEY. IN THE lNIH DiSiN'Oi'
IBY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNLl
N.sutScToS April 19.-Thc repOr. OF the sub
.onmittee of the House Committee on Elections
which has made thorough investigation OF the
contested election case of Smith against shelley of
he IVth Alabama District, will he an extremely IN
teresting document, and will fully expose the Pc
sular methods by which an honest Republican
majority of more than 5000 was trans
formed into fraudulent Democratic majority
of2.65l la his notice of contest Nir. smith, the
Republican contestant, alleged fraud, nailo'-ooA
stufng and conspiracy between the partisan irenus
.nd supporters" of sh LEY. The evidence upon
which the report is based fully sustains all these
Allegations. and shows beyond the shadow of
doubt that smith was fairly and honestly elected
ty a majority of 2, ,s03 of the votes actually cast
The committee will begin its report by calling at
tcntion to the fact that when the Democrats gaIry-
wandered he State eight years ago. they iound mat
81 would be impossible to arrange the districts as
10 make them all sody Democratic. and they
therefore made one black district to embrace
all the counties which were regarded as hopeleSsy
Republcan on account of the overwhelming MAJOR
ty of coorcd voters therein. The five couhtieS
composing tins district gave Republican majority
in 1874 of l4.946 votes. and at the fre'idehudi
election of $40 amajoity for Hayes OF 9'f4o Fo'eS'
Aceor,lng to the census of 1850 the district con-
.ons as 20 the significance of this the committee
will saw "The proof made by the contestant III
Tins case clearly shows that from 80 10 81 per
cent of the negro electors cast Republican ballots
for Republican candidates when permitted 10
do So" How in the face Of such condlu Us dld
Shelley succeed in obtaining certificate OF elec-
tiop Z is a qu stOn which the committee answer as
follows:
And your committee cannot escape the convet0n ION
nat
precOncerted plan and purpose nave oeeh mdue anu uu
dorstood by aud among The Democratic pars4ns b aie
snpporters Mr.. shelley that In m the prcclhcts where
tLe Republican majOrites were large ana DchocIatc
;pcts sb6nd fai and refuse 10 ooeu the polls ibe
dsy and thereby leave the work o. SO uong
I'm The hands OF whose education was such
ss TO make quite probable that some ceilctl er.pl
would occur furnish an excuse Tor rJecng ihe
hoy entirely strong cOrObOTaiiVt evidence o. TINS klhd
i found the further fact that the County supervise
refused 10 appoint any Repnpeans ID such e'gSnGs M m
selected by the RopuD lcal county pi % AZ IN
yaria Is selected who was unable 10 Itau or
vritr or who, however honest IN Intehuoh'
would not competent TO make ont TIE required re-
turns in a proper and legal manner, or tcoY,hledly
elbows that tt DemOcrsto supervisors, com posed o. tne
saeria PROBATE Judge and Clerk OF the Court o lhe
1onnty dd not fail 20 find prcteSt for refusing
10 count snoh boxes where by sacrlcnS one vote lOf
the Democrat they would destroy 800 Tor tAe hepuDn
can.
The particular case above referred to is that OF
MitcheIl's Precinct in Dallas County, the vote of
which the County Commissioners refused to count
on the ground that the inspectors returns were not
signed. This was not true The returns were signed
by mark and properly witnessed, and the Alabama
Code says:
signature or subscription includes a mark when the
pcrson cannot write. being written near II aud
Witnessed by person who writes his own name a. d
witness
The committee finds that at Martins Precinct in
Dallas County 3s4 votes were cast for Smith and
16 for Shelley. The process by which these votes
were eliminated is described by the committee as
follows:
The ballots were counted the returns made out placed
IA box returned To the sheriff OF tine county ana
diiyrred 10 hu but when opened by the County super
yisnrs no returns were found ana none were couhicu
The evdence is clear abundant both 10 the votes
cast for each candidate and thar the return was maze s
the law requires aud was when delivered 10 The SherH
IL lett the spectors hands The sner had the key to
the box, and whe tne evidence does not snow nat he
tampered with the box 1t docs the fact set ioh aO.e
and the result tina; Mr. smith lost a;ain o1 votes
At Lexington Precinct. il the same county, where
Smith received 800 votes and Shelley none the
same plan was adopted and the Republican vote
Suppressed At Chi latchie Precinct, same county
another plan was pursued which with its results Is
described by the committee as follows:
In this precinct Democratic Inspectors refused ana
failed to open the polls. The citizens so; but as the
COUNTY supervsors Jailed TO furnish either ballot0oxes
blanks for the returns, the votes were put Sa
box aud counted. Ceruned returns were made out and
delivered sheriff rather an offer 10 Dc - wa
made. when. the evidence shows ne was oin ny tnS
officer 20 take II away as the ia tIg Wae hot Wanuu
his Office THIS officer had no auhotliy 10 ftllse 9
he
and but for shelley his poianity as well as refusal
snay be accounted for
peculiar fraud at Pintala Precinct, Loundes
County is described by the committee as follows:
IN this precinct the Democratic Inspectors failed 20
open the polls and the ey jence SHOWS t Pos VIZ %
opened BY tie voters, and that one - j. hacOmDe VINO
had been appointed ~ the Count! super as an l
rpectOr, refused to act although prcont. lhc election
was quiet orderly during the voting but about me
room aud claimed the box and. against the
protest Of the officers took the box ana ut IL IL eapgI
ars fel lsl. IN a
committee another ballot box stuffed for the occasion,
and which be- disputng with the officers OF te cec
taken from TIC table and 1t appears fuly and c9ncn
votes Smith and 30 for shelley and the one subsd
tuted only votes for Smith and the balance Tor
Shelley.
According TO the returns made by United States
Supervisors of Election. Smith received lO,o7o
votes and Shelley received 6,7Sl BY the plan Of
throwing out whole precincts where there were
large Republican majorties the state election Off
GERS deprived Smith of 4.S57 and Shelley OF Z52
votes while AT five precincts IN Ferry County S43
votes were iraudulenty counted for Shelley by the
precinct Inspectors AT some precincts no election
was held and the manner of preventing II III one
case the committee describes as follows:
Your committee further finds that on the morning
Of the election the Democrat Inspectors OF Burnsvie
Precinct Dallas County dld not open the polls ana
failed appeal The citizens being mostly coloIed men,
before o'clock a. IN; to the number OF over or
sbout 400 voters, for the purpose OF voting, but
discouraged BY being informed tnat an eec ion in
the absence Of Inspectors Oud be illegal delegation
Of them went several miles 10 seek legal advice, ana
after doing they back and were about TO open
the polls and informed that thcy cOud not do
30 aiise the hour OF o'clock n. had passed
and no election could be held or polls
opened after that time. No poll boxes
wore furnished blanks for returns. They then Orga
Dized aud list of the Of voters III the precinct
taken and expression o. preference IRON eaCh as
choice for Representative IN Congress; and 800
registered and Xpressed their choice a. being Mr. Snh,
will not pressed willingness 10 vote for Mr..
Shelley as no polls in fact opened, and no
ballots cast, COMMITTEES while they believe
these electors have DecI deprived Of their votes
frauducntly, cannot allow them
The report will be submitted by the subcommit
tee e. the ull committee Tuesday. 1t is under
Ilnod thal Nj BoltzhOOycT, a DenIOcIatIc memDer