The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1883-06-06
MANNINa-CHALMERs CASE.
Reply to Chalmers
Holly Springs SOUTH

However, though he never gratities, he
sometimes arouses in the inquiring mind
a desire to know the truth rs to matters
about which he writes. 1t NAV there
fore be appropriate TO give some facts To
the public in connection with the sub
ieet mentioned in his recent letter Some
years ago the United States Government
sought Manning's services to assist in the
prosecution of several parties already
charged with violations of the ku kluX
law. He accepted the retainer, stipulat-
ing that the parties should have a fair
trial, before an impartial jury. In the
conduct of the eases he did his duty 70
the government as well as TO the South.
No one ever justified the outrages with
which our people were charged, but as
serted that they were fictitious. That
it would have been unjust to himself, 10
the defendants and the South, for him
to have declined to see fair inveStiga-
ton of the charges in the cases men
toned. is manifest. Chalmers volunteered
his services as Assistant United States
District Attorney, and limited his fec to
induce the acceptance of those services.
He operated TO secure indictments. In
stead of stipalating for an impartial
Grand jury, he used one composed of
two or at the most three Democrats, and
fourteen or fifteen of his partisaus,
eleven OF whom were ignorant negroes,
ANY bill could be found to which twelve
of the whole number aSsented. He
sought semi-iudieial position which in
yolyed the duty of secretly investigating
and passing preliminary judgment upon
the conduct of himself, his friends and
his opponents in an election out Of which
he had come under heavy personal
obligations to some, ii not with
malice toward others. The position en-
abled him TO protect himself and his
friends from indictment although they
might be guilty, and to indict his
enemies although they might be innocent.
The result of the election was in doubt
and likely to be affected by the action of
the Grand Jury, when he voluntarily be-
came its confidential adviser. Criminal
charges were publicly preferred against
himself and his friends as well as against
his opponents. We might criticise man
of ordinary virtue, who accepted under
such circumstances, a position which
shpuih uc abSblutNlN lChioACd lluli dli
suspicion of unfairness, but in the
presence of this great apostle Of a
fair ballot aud a free count" criticism
is absurd. If we were reviewing the
conduct of live politician, who had
acted in such position, we might allude
in terms Of strong condemnation, to the
fact that though appointed to prosecute
in both the Northern and Southern Dis
tricts of the state, he confined the play
of his mighty energies to that District
in which he had friends toprotect, enemies
tn punish, and contest to influence,
We might be tempted to say something
harsh about the fact that while the cor
respondencc Of Manningand his friends
were hauled before the Grand Jury, the
correspondence of Chalmers and his
friends was not called for. We might
complain that in Tallahatehie county,
when Mannings supporters and Chal-
mers united in resisting an assembly of
voters for fear Of smallpox. the sup
porters of Manning were indicted and
those of Chalmers summoned as wit
ncsses We might say something ugly
about such Il man, when he pressed so
hard for indictments against his politi-
cal opponents, as to disgust the respect
able members of the Grand Jury and
returned those indictments, though he
could only secure them through the
unanimous vote Of his eleven colorcd
assistants. We might be indignant with
such n man when he calls through the
courts suhpGnas for the letters and tele-
grams of his rival fora seat in Congress,
when that rival was not before the court
in any manner, shape or form. But we
will not condemn, nor complain Of this
oUer ripe political corpse, unburied only
because neither Republicans nor Demo
Gratis will permit the thing to be laid
away among their honorcd dead.
Even in the Gems narrative specific
allegations of facts to maintain that Man.
ming and his friends were election cor
ruptionists are conspicuously meagre
! Several kilograms and a letter are quoted
with substantial correctness, and there
, fore we are over captious it may be con
, sidering the Gems known weaknesses, II
, complain that with what in a less limo
I cent and guileless soul would be strong
evidence Of an intention to deceive, hC
. omits mention of the concurrent fact,
and the kilograms to which those quotec
were in reply, takes liberties with date,
and draws upon his fancy fora conspira
cy, which instead of being proved is EN-
phatically disproved by the evidence
! taken in the contested election case. HI
t first quotes the following telegram:
HOLLY SPRINGS, Miss, Nov. 8, 1882.
. TO J. y. BooTH, Sardis, Miss,
Manning defeated. Returns from
Union and Tippah 500 less.
: #| L. VI. WATSON.
! And then proceeds:
"Atter this conspiracy was formed +
change the result. Men were sent t
: Tippah and Union counties, etc, bu
, who we prove tried to have the electio
? commissioners meet again and make
: new count, and the following telegram
. were sent to Hernandez:
e HOLLY SPRINGS, Nov 9, 1882
, To A. :. Buchanan, fernando, Miss
= No official count reported from an
& county except Marshall Chalmers a
legged majority here reduced by canvas
AL~apn NJ w