The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1894-11-28
The Cases Of Fraud Taken
Up. The Beaufort and
Darlington Cases Con
sidered. No Decls.
ion Reached.

ion Reached.
CoLUMB1A, November 23.-When
the State board of canvassers met this
morning Secretary Of State Tindal, who
had just arrived from his home. was
present. This left Comptroller Ellerbeas
the only absentee. He is at home sick.
The first arguments during the session
were made to-day, and they we're inter-
essing. The contest Of the election
held at the precincts Of Lydia, Lamar's,
Mechauicsville and Darlington, in Dar-
liagson County, has been under consid-
GRAFTON all day. The Darlington con-
test comes up upon charges Of fraud at
these boxes and charges of the use of
the delay tactics at the last named pre-
cinct.
When the hearing began Mr.. G. S.
Nestles, appearing for the contestants
those on the Independent Democratic
ticket in Darlington County-read his
exceptions to the decision of the Dar-
lington County board and his notice OF
appeal to the State board.
The contestants charged frauds, such
as refusal to allow legal voters to vote,
delaying the voting, changing the posi-,
tion Of the boxes, misinforming ignor-
ant voters as to the location Of boxes.
etc. The documents we're quite long.
Mr. Nettles stated in reply to ques-
tson from Chirman Bates that he had
submitted proof to sustain the charges
made before the county board.
Mr.. Nettles then read numerous
afhdavits sustaining the charges made.
The following is the decision Of the
county board
After heasing full argument Of
council representing contestants and
eonseseses aud caremlly considering all
the tess;nosy offered, We adjudge aud
decide that the charges made by the
contestants are not sustained and prov
ed, aud that there we're no irregularl-
ties or fraud IN the election held at
Lamar. Lydia. Mecbanicaville or Dar-
iington precincts.
The grounds of contest before the
connty board we're as follows:
First. That large number of voters
we're improperly excluded aud prevent
ed from voting at Darlington and Me-
ehanicsville precincts.
Second. That the voters we're ex-
elnded and intimated and the managers
Of election at Lamar precinct failed to
comply with the Law. and the returns
from said Lamar precinct should be
thrown ose.
The boxes, counted by the board,
Here found 10 correspond with the re-
turn sheets.
Mr. Nettles gave the names of four
or FIVE voters who had voted twice as
there we're double entries for each on
the poll list.
Judge G. P Townsend. who appear
ed for the contestees, submitted afhda-
si,s contradictory to those submitted by
Mr.. Nettles. Most of them we're from
the managers, and were fat denials Of
the charges made. One of the mana
gers at the Darlington box. when the
polls closed, and the Pope men thought
they were elected, swears that the
Pope men congratulated hin on the
fair conduct Of the election.
Mr. Nettles then read counter afida-
yits to those submitted by Judge Town
send. One Of these aAidavits sets forth
that at least 400 voters we're prevented
from voting at the Darlington box by
the delay tactics.
Mr. Nettles opened the argument.
he said the contest vas not being made
by disappointed ofice-seekers. 1t was
being made because it was believed
that there had been gross frauds aud
irregularities. Fraud vas difficult
thing to prove because witnesses we're
few. but all testimony which could be
obtained ought to receive careful con-
sideratioo. Slight irregularities might
be overlooked. bat gross irregularities
eonld not He had submitted ao af6da-
Wit from no one unworthy of belief. He
reviewed oil the circumstances aud facts
Of the case aud argued that the board
could not but grant what was asked 1t
is needless to give ali the details of
the argument. It is only necessary to
state that Mr.. Nettles presented his
case in a very strong hight.
Judge Townsend replied at great
length, making. strong argument
Most Of it vas devoted TO the analysis
Of the afidavits presented by Mr.. Net
ties. He argued shat every one of them
Vas based on ..information aud belief"
whereas the parties affected could have
been fouod that the proof vas insuf-
6cient that credits should be given the
lower board for weighing the testimony;