The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1882-04-27

| lie officer could not refuse to serve, and
| that refusal 10 act was an indictable Of
fence Tho second count OF the iuforma
lion must 90 by the board. he showed.
because there was not particle OF proof,
not one jot or sciutilla of proof on the
! part OF the Government that the man
! ayers did not open or inspect the ballot
| box, while there was the positive tes,ii-
| moDy OF several credible witnesses that
| they did perform that duty He showed
| also that the third count necessarily went
with the second count. that is To say, they
could not be charged with obstructing
| and preventing the supervisor from ex
| ainining the box when he Was absent by
his own testimony at the time the box
| was exhibited. Furthermore. Gen. You
| mans showed that IL was no business OF
the supervisor 10 examine the ballot box.
| and in towns Of less than 70. 100 inhabi-
| tants il was mere impcrtinencc. That
examination. he said, whoever !. is TO be
made 10y. IS not 10 be made By the super
visor. His duty is simply 10 witness,
and the difference between witnessing
and examination and inspection is too
broad 10 comment on.
IL has been suggested to me in this con
ncctiOn that possibly the obstruction and
hinicrancc charged upon these managers
consists in the fact that The poll was not
held at ltarncits store, but was held ut
the school-housc. II ha, not been men
toned IN the charges j, has not been
limited u: in argument.
Mr.. Melton lintcrrupting - Ny friend
j. right. will press that point.
Mr.. Youinans continuing = am
glad have mentioned il, as il never
would have occurred 10 me Mr.. Ion-
mans, after taking the position that the
point not having been commented upon
III the opening argument and not being
charged in the Indictment could not he
used By the district attorney in closing,
went on 10 show that the managers were
in no way bound to hold the election at
any particular point in the town OF May
cs,ille. The Law said Mavesyillc. Why,
lie asked should il be held at Barnctt's
store? Not one single reason has been
given. 1t is a fact that at one previous
election in Maycsvilc the polls were
opened at Barnctts store 1t is also in
proof that AT another general election
1t was held at the depot. II Is also in
proof that at another election IL was held
at a place called Whceler's. The local
elections were held in different places.
Hoffman says the local elections had
sometimes been held Al the school house
/ { there Was any law that fixed the store
as the place the locus, il there was any
law that fixed the place by metcs aud
bounds, then of course the poll must
have been held there. 1t turns out that
there was no such law. Besides. Barnctt's
store vas private store. What right
,
house and op,n the poll? They went to
apublic building, rs the testimony shows,
i'll a part OF the town peculiarly fitted for
the holding of the election. The intcn-
iant of the town, who seems 10 have
acted with n degree Of discretion and good
feeling which deserve the thanks of that
community, protested against its being
held at Barnetts store because il was -c.y;
near tho intersection Of two public
streets. That there was tho row Of stores,
tho baZaa. part OF the town. That the
crowd around the poll would obstruct
the passage of the people and interfere
with business Of this very prosperous
little country town. Two hundred yards
OF was 4 broad open space, public bull
ding ut which tho poll could be fairly
opened. We insist that upon this charge
we cannot he tried, and that no argu-
ment can be adduced I? this C2ur how
| ing that this was any hindcrance to tho
supervisor or any obstruction to the
| United States. 1t struck mo that in tho
| tone of the attorney who first addressed
| the Court there was the insinuation that
the managers had misled some Of these
people. NJ. ouUians then went on 10
| show from the evidence the reasons for
holding the election at tho schonlhouse
were good and reasonable. 1t was q
| quieter portion Of the town. 1t was COM
Portable and had stoves where fires could
| be III de, while Barnett storo was an old
dilapidatod place, without any means for
| making the officers of the election COM
Portable. Was this ho asked, obstructing
or hindering the United States supervisor
| in tho discharge of his duty? That won't
do! That is not fair play. Any argu-
| ment from those facts against tho hefen-
dants is from naked, unsupported asscr-
! tiOn without oath against the sworn tes-
timony OF two respectable gentlemen
| Mr. IOumans went on to show that while
| Carroll may have told tho United States
supervisor that the election would bo held
Mt the usual place, there was no usual
place, and that even Carroll supposed
| that the voting would he at Barnett's
store, until when he was awakened the
next morning he found that the school
| house had been selected for good and
sufficient reasons Tho majority Of the
board Of managers had II right to act
without Carroll, and had acted. There
was nothing illegal In that. No damage
was done. Not the slightest. Why, gen
tlemen of the jury, he said, In the name
OF Heaven and common sense you can
not imputo anything to the defendants on
account of that The managers had n
right to go to .he sc ol-house oven if
they had published ,.4ut it was to be
somewhere else Everybody very soon
found out whero the election was to be
held and went thero. 1t was only fev'
yards Off There was 10 secrecy about
1t. This certainly could not be taken as
n suspicious circumstance going to prove
the count for hindering the supervisor
from inspecting and examining the bal
| lot-box, because there was no such
offence. If the law Is that l shall not
prevent you from witnessing certain
| thing, / cannot be punished under an in
dictment for preventing you from OK
amining it. l say that it is persecution
tn attempt to convict men upon this tes-
timony: Ii you can convict these men
under these counts, upon this testimony,
| then il is no use to defend anybody.
| Mr.. Youmans then took up the main
charge of the information, viz: the stuff
fling of the ballot box. lie elaborately
described the two modes of voting adop-
| ted in different countries and In different
| ngcs-voting rird roce and voting by bal
lot. He showed that the very essence Of
the theory oc -o.!ns By ballot was the
secrecy of the ballot and commented
upon the advantages of this mode of vo.
ting. This is very beautiful rose. said
he, but II has thorn, and that thorn is
that wherever the ballot has been used
In every CLINE and in ovcry age there has
been moro or less of trickery, more or
less Of cheating. And no place has this
| been more apparent than in the State of
Pennsylvania and in the City of Phila-
delphia where Simon Cameron reigns
! supreme. No where more than in Indi-
ana where he who now rules in tho
White House presided ut tho Dorsey BAN
quet where the carrying of Indiana by
cheating and fraud with the ballot was
| toasted to the echo, aud there always will
be trickery at elections with the ballot,
until God Almighty takes away tho germ
OF fraud, which, since tho days of Eden,
has has sprung sp9ptaneous in the human
with the ballot in New York, Pennsyl-
vania and Indiana. Why the Pennsylva-
| MIA cases reck with fraud, compared 10