The clarion., 1886-08-25
The Contest Between Hooker and
Barksdale.

Jayuga, having four votes, and Lynch
,urg, three votes, had been settled in
Hooker's favor. Both these contests
hould have been settled in favor of |
Barksdale.
At Cayuga % Barksdale men par
ticipated in the meeting that sent Barks-
dale delegates to the Convention, and |
only 19 Hooker men, in the meeting
that sent Hooker delegates. 1t vas
claimed by the Hooker delegates that
their meeting was held at the usual
place and at the appointed time, while it
was claimed by the Barksdale delegates
that they had an understanding that the
meeting would be conducted in a
friendly spirit, that no unfair advantage
would be taken by the one side or the
other, and that the candidate having
the greatest number of friends present
should have the delegates; and that in
the face of this agreement the friends
of Hooker quietly withdrew from the
village store, where most Of the friends
of both were assembled, TO the school
house, some 200 yards distant, and
rushed through the meeting before the
Barksdale men could get there. 1t was
also in evidence that the watches Of the
Hooker men, consulted for the purpose
of ascertaining whether it was o'clock,
the time appointed for the meeting, were
from fifteen TO twenty minutes faster
than those consulted By the Barksdale
men. The fact that the votes taken in the
Hooker meeting were unanimous, tends
to confirm the belief that Barksdale's
friends were misled By the agreement
to conduct the meeting fairly; for
it is incredible that % men within 200
yards of the place of meeting should
have shrunk from engaging in war
of ballots with 19 men. The simple
question before the Committee On Gre
dentials was whether the voice of the
people of Cayuga should be given ex-
preston CT be suppressed. They de-
cided to suppress it, and in this were
sustained by the Convention.
At Lynchburg there were present %
Hooker men, one of whom held proxy
for an absentee, and "A Barksdale men.
Objections were made to five Of the
Hooker men, that they did not live in
the Lynchburg precinct, and to the alb
sentee being voted by proxy. All these
objections were overruled by the Hooker
Chairman, though the fact on which the
objections were based were admitted.
The Chairman claimed that though the
persons objected to did not live in the
precinct, which was notorious, still they
had once registered there and until they
changed their registration, no matter
where they lived or for how long a time,
they had the right to vote there. Only
one of the persons pretended that he
was temporarily absent from the pre-
cinct with the intention to retain his
domicile therein, and he was recorded as
a voterin the municipality of Bolton. An
other publicly stated that he did not
claim domicile in the Lynchburg pre-
cinct. If those two and the proxy had
been excluded, as they ought to have
been, the majority would have been in
Barksdale's favor.
OF the fifty-one delegates elected in
Lincoln, Hooker's friends claim thirty.
seven, and concede Barksdale fourteen.
In the thirty-seven claimed for Hooker
are included eleven elected at Brook
haven, and Bat Montgomery. Barksdale's
friends will contest, as we learn, the
Brookhaven and Montgomery boxes. We
do not know the ground of the contest
at Montgomery, but if it is as good as
that at Brookhaven, Barksdaie should
have the delegates from both.
At Brookhaven the name of every vot
er who deposited ballot was checked.
During the count, and when the votes
were being taken from the box, one of
the tellers, Hooker man, called out
that there were two Barksdale votes
which had been voted together. The
Chairman instructed him to lay them
aside till the other votes had been
counted. At the close of the count it
was ascertained that Hooker was one
vote ahead without counting the two
Barksdale votes which the Hooker teller
claimed to have been cast together. At
this time the meeting was smaller by
some forty or fifty persons than the
number OF votes cast represented, and
the Hooker men were in a decided
majority. A friend of Hooker's moved
that the two Barksdale votes be reject
ed, and friend of Barksdale's moved,
as substitute, that the names of those
who had voted be counted in order to
ascertain whether there were too many
votes in the box. The substitute was
voted down by Hooker's friends and the
Barksdale votes were thrown ont. Some
of Barksdale's friends then counted the
list of voters and discovered that the
number of voters corresponded exactly
with the number of votes cast, which
conelusively proved that the Barksdale
votes thrown out were not cast together,
and that the claim of the Hooker teller
was either mistake or rascally trick.
All disinterested gentlemen will agree
that whether a mistake or trick,
Barksdale is entitled to the IL delegates
voted for on the Barksdale ticket.
Barksdale carried Jefferson county by
a majority of Al or ~, and Claiborne
by majority of S29, receiving nearly as
many votes as were cast for both candi-
dates on the 10th of July, thereby
doubly demonstrating that he is the
choice of Claiborne county for Con-
gress-
In referring to the matters of dispute
in tnis and other counties we do not ex-
pect to accomplish more than to give
the public an opportunity to see who is
profiting by thwarting the will of the |
people, whether ignorantly or fraudu-
lently.