South Branch intelligencer. [volume] (Romney, Va. [W. Va.]) 1830-1896, 1889-02-01

uone IL respect TO Fields Creek what
il had done in respect TO lewiston
and Coalburg, Judge Fleming and
Hon. John ID. Anderson would now
be elected to their respective seats,
on the face OF tie returns.
The case can be summed up in q
few words. The law provides that
the Commissioners of election at
every precinct shall be sworn TO per .
form their duties faithfully. In the
neglect OF this oath. the vote OF no
precinct shall be counted. 1t was
found that one OF the commissioner
bad not been sworn at precinct,
giving McGinnis majority OF 9.
IN THE TEETH OF TIE PLAIN STATUTE,
the Court insisted on counting this
precinct until il foun3 1t could throw
out Democratic precinct giving o
majority Of 20 on the Same ground,
and they both went together. But
when it was found later that ons of
the commissioners was not sworn at
q precinct giving a majority for Golf
OF ia, the Court violated the law
and the precedent which it had set IT,.
self, by insisting on counting the
vote. This is a fair sample of the
work done by these upright judges"
But let us come 10 another eAh;bi-
ton OF judicial wisdom. Solomon
couldn't hold candle to these men.
When the ballots at Alum Greek were
brought in they were found unsealed.
Anderson gained three and McGinuis
lost nine on the recount In this pre-
cinct. The ballots from West End
precinct were brought before the
Court Immediately aflerward. They,
too, were found unsealed, but here
Anderson lost two and McGipnis gain.
ed two on the recount. Without Ia
kiDg auy testimony whatever in the
case, beyond the mere statement Of
the commissioners Of Alum Creek
precinct, that The election had been
fairly held, etc., the Court promptly
decided that the ballots from Alum
Creek had been tempered with, but
the ballots from West End were all
right.
GoFF AND M'GINNIs GOT THE BENEFIT
Of their gains on the recount OF West
End, but Fleming and Anderson were
deaied the benefit Of their gains on
the recount Of Alum Creek.
When The comm ..ssioners of el,c-
ton at Alum Creek were summoned
before the court, they testified, OF
course, that they had conducted the
election in the manner prescribed by
law. Counsel for Fleming and AL
derson asked leave to cross-examine
them, and offered to prove in expla-
patton of mistakes made in the orig-
iDal 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. Cum
ningham, W. B. Calderwood and S.
5. StauntoD, Commissioners Of the
County Court OF Kanawha county.
1t is the best statement tLey can
make Of their own case. Attorneys
for Judge Fleming and Hon. John
ID. Anderson
OFFERED TO PROVE
that on the day Of the election ct
Alum Greek precinct, the commits
sioners Of election opened the ballot
box about noon of that day and
counted the vote for Governor, and
that during the time this was done
votes we're being received by the
commissioners, 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
testified that the election was prop.
erly conducted, and overruled said
motion. And therefore the
attorney for said Fleming (the same
attorney acting for AljersOD) offered
10 prove that the commissioners Of
election at Alum Creek, were all un-
der the influence of liquor; that they
had jug of whisky setting by them
during the entire day, when they
were receiving votes, end during tho
night, while they were counting the
ballots that the clerks Of election
were allowed 10 receive ballots and
put them in the box that the com.
missioners Of election kept tally !;
that ono OF tho commissioners was
beastly drunk, and went out with the
bystanders and took drinks while The
other commissioners were counting
the ballots, and that one of the com
missioners was too drunk TO be q
party to the count
The record continues Bot the
court decides that under the circUm-
stances Of the case respecting said
precinct, it would and did then and
there override the notion.
under the circumstances = What
were the circumstances? Nothing
more nor less than that these election
commissioners suore that they had
conducted the election properly.
Who expected them TO do otherwise?
Yet on such testimony the partisan
court refused TO admit important tes.
tImony showing that each and every
one of these commissioners was in a
state Of intoxicaton, and repeatedly
violated the election law. This is
another sample Of Kanawha county
justice. Truly the members of this
court we're
DANIELS CONE TO JUDGMENT