The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1884-02-21
The Mannlng-Chalmers Case.

The Mannlng-C Chalmers Case.
The contested election case of Van H.
Manning against J. R. Chalmers. from
Mississippi, was discussed in the House
Of Representatives last week, and the APP
plication of Manning for the seat on the
prima facie feature denied. 1t was rather
singular case. and called out some of the
best legal and forensic talentsof Congress.
At the electionin November, 1882, the re-
turns as certified by the Commissioners of
the several counties showed that Chalmers
was elected. by over 800 votes. In the case
of the county of Tate, where Chalmers re-
ceived l ,472 votes and Manning 1,166, of
which the Commissioners Of Election made
proper return, the clerk endorsed onthe back
of the returns that Chambliss had received
the LAP. Upon this clerical error in
spelling Chalmers name, either inten-
tional or accidental, the vote of Tate
county was counted for Chambliss instead
of Chalmers, although there was no such
person as Chambliss voted for Manning
receiving the benefit of the vote cast for
him in said county. Thereupon the Gov
ernor issued the certificate to Manning
This, however, Manning did not accept,
nor did he present it at the organization
of the House, but admitted that the / ,472
votes in Tate county were cast for Chal-
mers and should be counted for him,
claiming, however, that fraud had been
committed in the use of money for Chal-
mers in other portions of the district
Chalmers took the case to the Circuit
Court Of Mississippi, and an order was is
sued commanding the Secretary Of State
to count the vote for Chalmers which had
been counted for Chambliss. The Gov
ernor had issued the certificate of cleo
tion to Manning and on this state of facts
the case came up in Congress, as to which
Of the contestants was. entitled to the seat
on the prima facie evidence. Had Man
ming presented the Governors certificate
at the organization Of Congress, he would
doubtless have been admitted to his seat
and the contest proceeded on the merits
of the case. But this he would not do
resting upon Congress the responsibility
of seating him, when he would not do it
himself, because of the knowledge of the
fact that his certificate had been issued
by reason of the denial by the Secretary
of State of the vote of Tate county fol
Chalmers, ON account Of the misspelling OF
his name on the face of the returns, al.
though the Commissioners had properly
certified them. The vote was taken in
Congress Saturday last, on the resolution
claiming that Manning held perfect ere,
dentials in the certificate of the Governor
of Mississippi, and was entitled to be
sworn in. The vote stood ayes 106-nays
1879, and was determined against Manning
The effect of this fair and impartial de-
termination is to leave the Second Dis.
trict Of Mississippi without representa-
tive, until the merits Of the case are con-
sidered and decided. AS there is no doubt
about Chalmers having received major
ity of the votes cast, he will doubtless be
seated.
ACOolos uChCl tilu 0COlSO Os w 1OS
both spoke in behalf of Manning's right
to be sworn i'll, but a large portion of the
Democratic members voted the other way
There is not member in Congress who
does not know from the facts as pre-
scented in the record Of the case that the
Governors certificate was based on a
fraud yet it was technically argued that
Congress had no right to go behind that
certificate, although the fraud was patent
to every understanding and Manning him
self virtually admitted it. While we have
no great admiration for Mr.. Chalmers, we
are gratified that enough Democrats voted
against seating Manning to save Congress
the gross injustice and wrong that would
have been involved in seating him on a
certificate based on an acknowledged fraud