The western sentinel. [volume] (Winston-Salem, N.C.) 1887-1926, 1893-09-28
WILLIAMS vs.. SETTLE.
CONTESTED ELECTION CASEFROM
THE FIFTH DISTRICT.
A Summary of the Contestants Brief
Which Makes Pamphlet of
SiXty-Eight Pages.

SixtyEight Pages.
Correspondence ofThe Sentinel1
WASHINGTON, Sept. 22-The brief of
the contestant in the case of Williams
against Settle, from the Fifth North
Carolina district has been printed. 1t
makes pamphlet of IS pages. The
gist of the case may be gathered from
the following summary:
The vote, as canvassed and declared
by the Board of State Canvassers is as
follows:
Thomas Settle. ..........-.-14 ,O75 |
A. II. a. Williams ID, l46 |
William r. Lindsay. .......... 4,33S |
w. NJ. Love. ............ .424 |
Thomas A. Settle. lib |
Now, if we give to the contestee |
the 80 votes enormously adjudged by |
the Board of State CanyaSsers to |
Thomas a. Settle, then his total
vote would be 14,l4S.
In the event that the contestant
upon this point is sustained, to wit:
| that the opening of the ballot and
announcing the result Vltlated the
| whole returns from those precincts,
from which it was done, then accord
| irg to the tables heretofore given, we
must deduct from
| Thomas Settle, conteStee. i 125 votes
from A. II. A. Williams contestant
655 votes.
from VIM. R. Lindsay. 2S4yotes
which would leave the votes standing
| as follows:
| Thomas Settle. .13,O Oh
| A. I'll. A. Williams. ID, liz
| VIM. r. Lindsay. -....... 49,. 934
which gives the contestant plurality
| of II votes.
But if to this plurality of II, we add
| nj Il, 80 TO h n q n
| is entitled on account OF the illegal
votes cast for cOnteStee, then we have
actual plurality of 993 votes for con-
| testant.
We come now to consider the cleo
tion in Rockingham county, as affect
ed by the bargain, shown to have been
| made between the contestee and his
ardent partisan, James +. Wray, De
putty Collector of Internal Revenue,
on the one part, aad certain Demo
Gratis of said county on the other,
whereby the contestee pledged himself
to deliver 500 NEGRO votes" to leglS-
lative and county Democrats ticket,
in consideration that the Democrats
would make no challenges of Republi-
can voters at certain precincts in said
county on the day of the election. 1t
will be seen according to the allega-
tionS of the contestant, which are
amply sustained by the testimony in
this cause, that there were in Reds
vile, LeakSville, Ruffin, Thompson
vile, and IronwOrks, the precincts
affected by this alleged trade, 6I7 votes
which were amenable to challenge,
and should have been rejected under
the registration laws of North Caro-
lima, which were all cast for the con-
teStee. That there was such bargain.
and that there were no challenges OF
illegal votes in accordance Herewith,
is amply shown by the testimony OF
NJ. A. Apple, p. sc: E. r. Harris, p. 81:
w. @. Samples, p. 80; John I'll. Dill
lard, Jr., p. II; and z. ID. Watt, p. III
And in addition to those that have
been challenged on account of illegal
| registration, there were many 1.-THE
number the contestant is unable to
state, the witnesses testifying from
20 to COZ who should bave been reject
ed on accountof non-residence, minor
ity and other sufficient causes, d:
shown by the testimony of the above
named witnesses, but who were allow
ed to vote for the conteStee, in pur-
Suance of the bargain between the
contestee, Settle, and those persons
who ware acting, OStensibly, in TIT
interest of the local and legislative
Democratic ticket.
Contestant is aware that there is NJ
statute against simple trade of vote
latiOn of the law than for candidate
to agree to have cast for a portion o
another ticket certain number o
votes, in consideration that a larg
number of persons, Illegally registered
or wanting in the necessary qualitica
tiOnS of electors, should be allowed II
vote for himself. And when, as il
this instance, it is shown that sucl
candidate, to wit: contestee paid mon
ey to have said bargain effect
uated (see testimony of J. III. billiard
Jr., p. Al, as to admission of cOnteStee
then, on his part, it becomes mos
fragrant offence against the purity Q
the ballot, and the guilty party ough
to be deprived of all advantage deIiV
ed therefTom. 1t is a fraud, in law
as complete as if the cOntestee haC
paid money in the first instance 70
the purpose of making such bar
gain.
The contestant, therefore, claim
that no votes cast for the cOntestee
= at the precincts embraced in this bar
gain or trade, should be counted
though it seems the local and legiSla
| tive Democratic ticket did not receiv
the benefit of this ubiquitous trade
j at Wentworth, still contestee aver
/ that it was through no fault of hi
: (see testimony of p. d. Watt and J
: II. billiard, Jr.) If he succeeded b,
q his fair promises and assurances o
e good faith in lulling to sleep suspic
e ion of the Democrats, and thereby in
3 duced them to make no challenge
q whereby he got the benefit of illega
a and fraudulent votes, the whole mum
Der of votes so procured, by such ne
fariOus means, ought to be rejected
!. 1t may be contended, by the contestee
that he had no power to deliver tn
vote of any individual or any class o
individuals. But be that as it may
in the legal point of view, the sterr
fact remains that the negro vote, il
| most sections of the South belongs tt
the leaders of their party, as much a!
their bodies formerly belonged to thei
masters, and the .contestee evidently
< recognized this to be true, and acteC
: upon it when he contracted to delive
, the NEGRO vote" in certain number!
l at certain precincts, and if any doubt
6 existed in the minds of the commit
: tee, as to what party the negroes il
this county belong, and for what tick
ct they: Voted. all doubt must be re
u moved when we find that they wer,
' treated by conteStee and his partisan
} | prey, as so many chattelS to be deliv
9 cred to whom, and in what numbers
2 they might see fit.
/ The contestant claims that at the
: six precincts affected by this bargain
the number of votes cast for the con
testee amounted to GIT, which mus