The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1893-07-06

by us in the O'Ferrall line, and SO
reported to the chairman. In this
count there was not included 8. 8.
Thomas. the chairman of the meet
ing. nor DIR. 81. d. Kerioot, the O'Ferrall
teller, then engaged in counting the
other side. Had these two been included
the vote would have been 134 instead OF
13s. Not single negro was counted by
either Mr.. Bell or myself, and this L
solemnly affirm. My duty as teller
being ended walked over to a point
near the other side, which it was sup
posed was being counted by Mr.. w. 81.
Cameron and DR.. III D. Kerfoot. I at
once saw that no fair or at least reliable
count could be made under the circum-
stances DR.. Kerfoot WAS at least ten
yards behind Mr.. Cameron, the latter
going ahead as il his life depended
upon his reaching the end of the line in
limited time, while DR. Kerfoot was
followed by several gentlemen, self.
appointed tellers, who were confusing
him all along the line. Men we're con.
ting in line ahead Of the tellers and Dr.
Kerfoot was kept busy in putting
them out of the line. Whether
Mr.. Cameron had counted these
men more than once / can't say,
but 1t is fact that they tried to get
themselves counted more than once by
DR.. Kerfoot. The confusion, excite
ment and buster was 30 great that it
was apparent no accurate, reliable count
could BIO made. After Mr.. Cameron got
through he, without consulting with DR..
kerfoot, his associate teller, announced
to the chair that he had counted 147,
and thereupon DR.. Kerfoot stated to the
chair that he had made no count that
could be relied on, because OF the great
confusion existing on that side, and was
therefore unable to make any report at
all. The chairman at once announced
that he could act only on information
received from the tellers, and as there
was no report from them, he directed a
recount to be had of the line. do not
believe that single voter on that side
had left the courthouse yard, but on the
contrary am satisfied that every man
who had been in that line was still in
the yard and that q recount could have
been had without difficulty and without
injury to the anti O'Ferrall side.
The direction of the chairman, that
recount be made was at once positively
declined-more than one of the adher.
ents of that side shouting vociferously,
that no further count would be made or
submitted to. The chairman then de-
clared the gentlemen reported as re-
ceiving l32 votes duly elected as
delegates and alternates to the
convention. 1t has been admitted,
by Mr.. Kownslar, in his letter
to the Gazette. that five ne yroes were in
ciuded in the count on his side, and this,
IN the face OF our agreement that neither
side should count them. do not hold
Mr. no "nslar responsible for this breach
OF our agreement, because l believe him
n bn hprnDd al, A,,A
fact remains that they were counted by
some b. dy. There were nine negroes in
that line, and have their names. There
were tive men also in that line who last
iail voted the Third party ticket for Pres
ldent. and some OF them, II not all, | am
credibly informed, were in meeting
held few days before to send dele.
gates TO the Lynchburg convention.
There was at least one minor in the
same line, and certainly as many as
four persons residing in other DIST lets,
and one nonresident, and those are the
men who my friend Kownslar declares
to be of the solid and invincible Democ
racy, who have fought shoulder to
should with him in many hard fought
contest for the supremacy of Demo.
cratic principles. Good Lord deliver
US from such" Now to summarizes:
l. A new count on their request was given. on
the selection OF a chairman and in the short in.
tcrval between the two counts they increased ten
or eleven in number, and this in the face of tho
fact that the town and district had been raked ns
with fine tooth comb Where did they come
from:
!. The third count. as reported by Mr. Cameron,
the anti O.Ferrall teller, disclosed l47 votes. an
Increase OF 81 or 81 over the first count Where
did they come from: Like doodle bugs, one must
suppose they came mp out OF the ground in re
Spouse to the syrcn voice OF those who called
upon them In the hour OF their great need
They were offered recount while all of
their voters were still in the courthouse yard,
and therefore accessible, and this they declined
d. Since the meeting was over and the public
prejudice has been sought to be aroused by
partisan and incomplete statement OF the facts,
in order to secure harmony and unity in our
party ranks they have been challenged 10 n new
vote, the only condition or limitation being that
IL should he had by Il primary, and THAT NONE
BUT DEMOCRATS should vote, and this has like
wise been declined.
5 There was no such report from the tellets as
could he received and acted on by the chair. The
object of tecrs is TO inform the chair that he
may be able TO declare the result, and the object
otlwo tcllers. one representing each OF the op-
posing sides, lie to insure fairness iii the count
Here, one teller says he has made no count, and
reports the result OF his count. viii anyone at
all familiar with parliamentary usage claim that
the chairman could receive and act upon the
report of one teller, will he not agree that The
refusal OF the other side to submit 10 a recount
mt the direction OF the chair. was the equivalent
OF Withdrawal from the meeting. or at least of
conceded, for the SAKE of argument, thEt
In point OF fact there were l4I votes
in the opposing line, still IL must also
means OF knowing this. except on information
derived from the tcllers and not from one teller
III, as charged. DR.. kerfoot acted unfairly, or. il
you Will. disnonesty. the remedy to ask his
removal and the substitution OF rome one else in
his stcad. The time, however, to make the
charge sgalnst DR.. kerfoot was At the met citing
and not in tbs newspapers. and the remedy
could then have been applied.