The Wellington enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 1867-188?, 1884-03-12
The Chalmer'.Manning Case.

In the contested seat case in the
House of Chalmers against Manning
the committee reported in favor of CIV
ing n ither seat, thus forcing new
election. A major ty, however, of the
more extreme Democrats favored seat
ing Manning on the ground that he
holds a certificate. The public will
readily recall the facts of this case.
Chalmers is the notorious "butcher of
Fort Pillow" He has been twice seat
ed by the Democrats after former cleo
tions, notwithstanding they were car
ried by the most outrageous bulldozing,
frauds and false counting. This time
Chalmers ran as an Independent, while
Manning was the regular Democratic
nominee. The district is the famous,
or rather infamous, shoes string district
of Mississippi, so notorious for its m1ny
murders of Republicans by Democrats.
AS an independent Chalmers promised
the colored Republicans to protect their
rights, and many of them voted for
him. He was elected by a large NIT
jority beyond any doubt. But the Clerk
of one county seat sent in false and
fraudulent return Civ ng the votes cast
for Chalmers to "Uhamnless;' and on
this the Democratic Secretary of State
made haste to give Manning certiti-
cate of election. Then State court
interlered, dec ded that Manning was
not elected, and issued an order forbid
ding the Secretary of State to SO certi-
fly. In defiance of this order
of the court the Governor issued
commission to Mann ng. In Man
ning's reply to the declaration of
Chalmers he squarely admitted that the
votes put down in the false return to
Chambless' were really cast for
Chalmers, and the return was "a cler-
ical error" Of which he would take no
advantage. He did not claim that the
Governors commission was valid; and,
when Congress met, he did not file his
pretended commission or certificate,
and therefore the Clerk did not place
his name on the roll. Yet a minority ol
the committee, supported as the debate
shows by a number of Democratic
members, are in favor of giving Man
ming the seat to which he was MOI
elected, and to which Chalmers was
elected, on the thin pretense that Man
ming holds a certificate, and Congress
has no right to re ect or 60 behind s
certificate no matter if it is drippins
with fraud, and Notwithstanding Man
ming himself does not claim that thu
certificate is valid! The ma or,ty of thu
committee, composed of four Democrat
and six Republicans, reported in favo
of seating neither of the contestants
on the ground that neither claiman
presents a genuine prinia tacie title
The facts are that Manning was no
elected; Chalmers has no certificate
and the election was so vitiated b,
frauds, violence and irregularit es tha
the Republican party was entirely SUP
pressed by bulldozing. but for whicl
neither Chalmers nor Manning coul,
have been elected. A resolution wa
offered by Mr.. Curtin, of Pennsylvania
to recommit the case to committee t
inqu re if either claimant had a certititat
legal in form; that is to give the seat t
Manning if his certificate is techn cill
correct in form, and then let Chalmer
contest and oust him, if he can, by an
by after the usual style, ter Mannin
has held tie seat, and drawn pay, an
misrepresented the district till some
where near the end of the term. Anon
the supporters of this proposition wa
Mr.. Randall. Its design is to follow tn
policy of always seating the regula
democratic nominee from the bulldo2e
distr cts Of the solid South; because
the Democrats give way in even so out
rageous case as this, they may le
down the bars for the admission of Re
publicans on similar grounds. -Detro
Post and Tribune.