Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1889-01-16

dent which it had Get itself, by insisting on
counting the vote. This in fair sample Of
the work done by these upright judges"
But let us come 20 another exhibition OF
judicial wiedOm. Solomon couldn't hold
candle to these men. When the ballots at
Alum Creek were brought in they were
found unsesled. Alderson gained three and
McGinnis lost nine On the recount in
this precinct. The ballots from West End
precinct were brought before the Court
Immediately afterwsrd. They, too, were
found unsealed, but here Anderson lost two
and McGinnis gained two on the recount.
Without taking any testimony whatever in
the case, beyond the mere statement of the
commissioners of Alum Creek precinct,
that the election had been fairly held, etc,
tie Court promptly decided that the bal
lots from Alum Creek had been tampered
with, bat the ballots from West End were
all right.
GOFF AND M'GINHls GOT THE BENEFIT
of their gains on the recount of West End,
bat Fleming and Anderson were denied the
benefit Of their gains on the recount of
Alum Creek.
w
Alum Creek were summoned before the
Court, they testified, Of coarse, that they
had conducted the election in the manner
prescribed by law. Counsel for Fleming
aud Anderson asked leave to cross-examine
them and offered to prove in explanation
of mistakes made in the original count,
and discovered that the commissioners
were all drunk on the day of election.
We quote now from the record, signed
by the Hon. John S. Cunningham, W. B
Calderwood and S. S. Stanton, Commits
siorers of the County Court of Kanawha
county. 1t is the best statement they can
make of their own Gaze. Attorneys for
Judge Fleming and Hoa. john D. Alder
son
OFFERED TO PROVE
"that on the day of the election at Alum
Creek precinct, the commissioners Of cleo
ton opened the ballot box about noon OF
that day and oonntsd the vote for Gov
error, and that during tie time this was
done votes were bsing received by the COM
mis,i0ners, that also during the day one
of the commissioners was drunk while the
election was being conducted; but the
court stated and certified that it had fully
examined the officers of election aforesaid,
at said Alum Creek precinct, who had tes-
tilted that the election was properly con-
duct at said precinct, and Overruled said
motion. And therefore the at
torDey for said Fleming (the same attor-
neys acting for Alderson) offered to
prove that the commissioners of
election at Alum Creek we're all
under the influence of liquor; that they
bad jug Of whisky sitting by them dur
ing the entire day, when they were receiv
ing votes, and during the night, while
they were counting the ballots; that the
Clerks of Election we're allowed to receive
ballots and put them in the box; that the
Commissioners of Election kept tally; that
one of the Commissioners was beastly
drunk and went ont with bystsnders and
took drinks while the others were count
ing the ballots, ard that one of the Com
misssionerJ was too drank to be party to
the count"
The record continues: "But the Court
decided that under the circumstances sur
rounding the case as respected said pre-
ciuct, it would and did then and there
overrule tie notion"
Under the circumstsncesw What were
the circumstances? Nothing more or less
than that these election commissioners
swOre that they had conducted the election
properly. Who expected them to do 9th
erwise? Yet on such testimony the psrti-
can Court refused TO admit important tes-
timony showing that each and every one
of these commissioners was in state OF
intoxcatiOn, ard repeatedly violated the |
election law. This is another sample OF
Kaugwha county justice. Truly the men,
ber5 of this Court were
"DANIELs COME To JUDGMENT"
These are cases of the grossest wrongs,
but they are not all by any means. st.
Albans precinct was taken up on the re-
count. The result showed that Anderson
and Fleming both made gains. No evil
dence whatever was called in by the Court.
The ballots were in proper condition, yet
the commissioners in their infinite wisdom
declared that the ballots had been tam
psred with, and refused 10 give the Demo
cratic candidates the benefit Of the re-
count.
The Charleston case was the crowning
act of all The ballots OF Charleston city |
were tie last ones TecOunted. Tire recount |
vas completed at night. No complaint
was made and no questi was raised until |
il was ascertained that on the recount |
Fleming bad gained % and Anderson %
The ballots had been placed By The cleo
ton commissioners in q wooden box. This
box had been sealed and placed by the |
Clerk of the County Court along with 9th
er packages of ballots in
4 LARGE AND SECURE BOX,
provided for the purpose. The large box
was also sealed, and the President of the
County Court carried the key When the |
recount was completed the ballots were re-
placed in the box and sealed up again. |
The next day the Commissioners had the
box brought before them They turned 1t
over and ionnd crack the width Of a knife
blade in one Of the planks making mp the |
bottom. The box was also scratched, evil
IDENTIFY by handling On this appearance, |
the Commissioners of the Court concluded |
that the ballots Of Charleston |
precinct had been tampered with,
and took an abundance of proof
to the effect that the plank in the bottom
of the box was split. No single witness
ever testified that be had examined the |
box before the election commissioners !
placed the ballots in it, or was able to tell
how or when the crack had been made.
Yet the commissioners concluded that the |
ballots had been tampered with, and de-
MED TO Fleming and Anderson the benefit
of their gains on the recount.
WOULDN'T LISTEN TO PROOF.
Counsel for Fleming and Anderson offer
ed to prove by the merchant that furnish-
ed the box, that the crack wss in it when |
be sold it to the commissioners. They
offered to prove that the box was exactly
in the same condition as when it left this
merchants hands, and tha' the ballots had
been safely kept by the clerk.
Witness the following extracts from the
Courts record:
and thereupon said Fleming offered TO
prove by said witnesses and other witnesses
that from the time the ballots cast at
Charleston prscinc., and the box in which
they were kept were delivered to the Clerk
of the County Court by the commissioners
OF the election of said precinct, as set out
in their evidence, up to the time they