New-York tribune., 1888-04-15
COL ELLIOTTS STOLEN SEAT
tJNBLUsHING FRAUD IN SOUTH CAROLINA
WILL THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY UPHOLD ini'
CPIMF AGAINST THE NATIoNf
,,r rELEoRArH TO THE TRIBUSL.]

yyr TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUSE]
WASHINGTON April 14-At the oesiiiniie =,
1.-The Lth Congress there were elght 'con'eS'ou =,
election cases 10 be heard. OF this numoer al
have been disposed OF in committee, with the eX-
ception of the cases of Small against Elliott ana
Sullivan against FELTON,. The cases OF FRANK
against Glover and Lynch against VandeVef nave
already been argued in committee, but nave HUI
vet been reported TO the House, notwithstanding
the fact that these cases were passed upon py tie
oommittee on March l. The Smalls case, it is
reported will not be taken up until all the oUher
cases have been reported and acted upon in the
House. In other words, the Democratic party III
the House refuses to investigate and expose the
corrupt and fraudulent methods resorted to by
Colonel Elliott to steal the seat which an lmparlal
investigation will show belongs to Robert SnalIS.
No man who has read the testimony or VINO
knows anything about the Win Congress SSi Uhal
District Of South Carolina, known as " Inc BACK
District" composed of counties ana parts OF
counties, thirty-seven in number, with registered
oOlOred Republican. vote OF 23,0OO Will pc
Iieye for one moment that the negro he
pubHcans Of this district would sehu 70
The National Congress any Democrat 10 represent
them even if Mr.. omalls had not been candioae'
The Black District purposely created py throw
ing into one district those counties, ana portions
Of counties heavily populated by the colored
people and in which IN numbers they preponderate
twenty TO one over the white people IL was eX-
pected and intended that it would always be repre-,
sented by a colored man, or by one In pohtcal
accord with the negro race. According to the
Democratic official returns OF the supervisors on
the evening Of the election OF November :, 1850,
the vote for the With Smalls's District stood as
follows: For Robert Smalls: In Beaufort County,
Brick Church, 545; Berkley County, Brick Church,
267; Griers Precinct, Brick Church, 50; Santee
Precinct. Brick Church, 212; Cedar Creek Pre-
snc Brick Church SO Sandy yIsT 1snS Forte o
Brick Church, 2S6 For William Elliott: Beau
fort County Brick Church, AS; Berkey County pricy
Brick Church 0: Brick Episcopal Church, Brlck
Church. 3 Grers Precinct, Brick Church, 4 Cedar
Creek Precinct Brick Church. 0; Sandy Island
Precinct, Brick Church, o; Orangeburg County,
Fort Motto Brick Church. So.
The Board of County Canvassers failed and re-
fused TO count and include in the returns made
by them to the State Board the whole by t6e os
Roards Of Elections as shown above, and thus 328
jegal votes cast for Mr.. Smalls were fraudulently
omitted from the count, while Elliott ny the same
fraudulent and Illegal means, was deprived OF
A. Grabamsville in Beaufort County the man
ncers of the elections being all partfSans and sup
portSrs Of Elliott and acting illegally in his in
forest. deliberately Tcfufed TO count torty-thc
legal votes found in tho box, one OF which was
for Elliott and fortveight were for Smalls, under
the pretcXt that the ballots were mutl,Neu,;
&" The Greenvillc Daily News (Dem.) published
az Greenvie, s. C.. commenting upon this says:
We do believe the Democratic party OF THIS section
will accept the responsibility for this election, and we
know II ought not to The facts and figures VIII be
brought out and put the world and II the Democrats
IN Congress give Colonel Elliott the seat they Will be heo
before the world as aiding and abetng crime ana receiv
ing results The harm is not only In the future Inns
election DESTROYS the work Of years We have claimed
persseny that all the doubtful methods we have useo ID
elections were justfabe as being necessary for sepreser
,aton 10 defend our families from barbarism and corrup
ton That claim is Just and and it we have won
liberation and sympathy. Now our enemes-and we nave
peptv OF henwil point this election evidence that
we have been lying will its wantonness to prove
that we have inspired only by greed for power ana
Colonel Elliott dos not reprc sent the 32,OOO
Republicans OF the With Congressional DISTRICT
Of South Carolina IN any sense, ana a 1air anu
impartial examination of the circumstances sur
rounding his so-cal.ed election will develop the
fact that the methods he employed TO capture
Smallss seat are as reprehensb bic they are dis
blunder and a moral wrong" At the last Con
eressional opportiOnmcnt Of South Carolina the
With District was conceded TO the Rcpubllcans
Smalls had carried it in 1884 by vote or S,Ool
TO 1850 but Elliott was returned In 1886 by
vote of 6493 TO 5,9G1 for Smalls. This was
sample of the voting done on the day when the
total Congresson vote pOlled In the state was
B9O72 as against 90, 6S9 in 584, and 12l. 500 IN
1882. These are the facts and figures and they
tell their story.
The Democratic majority in the House and the
Committee on Contested Elections certainly Will
not in the face of this gigantic fraud, this un,,
routestabe evidence of corruption, bribery ana
Intimidation, permit Colonel Elliott TO hold the
seat which his own party and party journals de
clare was obtained by questionable methods and
W thOut reason or excuse.
Pv unanimous vote to-day the House Committee
on Elections decided the contested election case Of
Nathan Frank VS.. John NJ. Glover in the 9th
Missouri district in favor OF Mr. Glover, the sit
ting member Two Republican members of the
committee were absent from the meeting