The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1895-12-19

on thisscore. This letter would be too
long. The above is only q small part
of the Evidence, all going to show the
absurdity of Cheafham's claim about
the solid negro vote. With the official
record of registration, and the over
whelming evidence of divided negro
vote. there is no ground for the allega-
tions made by contestant, and upon
which he is asking for seat in Con-
gress.
The fallacy of the main ground upon
which Cheatham began his contest
being exposed, he then places his re-
lance to work up case by a general
allegation of fraud on the part of the
election officers of the district. In his
attempt to establish this allegation,
he encounters the same signal failure
as in the other claims which the evil
dence proves to be entirely unfounded.
Instead of fraudulent conduct at the
elections, it is shown that they were
conducted fairly and honestly not only
by the testimony of the witnesses, but
but by a report made to the Legislature
by a committee composed of a MAORI
ty of contestants friends. In the
county of Edgecombe, where it is pro-
posed to change the official vote SO as
to make out plurality for contestant,
all the evidence shows that the charges
Of fraud are entirely frivolous. The
charge that ignorant and corrupt ne
gro Republicans were appointed poll
holders is utterly gratuitous on the
face of the report of the Legislative
committee and the fact that these poll
holders were appointed on the recon-
mendation of the Republican Executive
Committee, and their character for in
telligence and honesty is abundantly
proved by all the witnesses examined.
In many of the townships where con
testant received very few and in some
instances no vote at all the fairness of
the election is not questioned in his
notice of contest, and no testimony
offered TO establish such charge.
As a specimen of the ground upon
what it is claimed to reverse the re-
turns of the sworn officers of election,
/ can only mention a few as a sample
OF the absurdity of these charges.
In the county of Warren two wit
nesses are examined who give their
opinion that contestant is entitled to
more votes in two precincts in that
county than were returned for by the
poll-holders. These two witnesses ac-
knowledge they did not live in the two
precincts referred to, and were not
even present in the precincts on the day
of election. Without any personal
knowledge of the matter, they merely
give an opinion, and it is seriously
claimed that 300 votes upon such testi-
mony as this should be added to the
vote of contestant.
L., I.. af ord
precinct only one witness was exam
med. NJ. +. Staneell, for contestant,
who, in answer to the question, How
many colored men at this precinct, OF
your own knowledge. voted for Wood
ard?" replied, Il do not know of any.
| did not stay but an hour on the day
of election. | know that they said be-
fore the election that they intended to
vote for Woodland. Whether they did
or not could not tell. | have heard
David Doles say that he worked for
him, also Nathan Calvert. With this
testimony, all that was taken for this
precinct, it is proposed to add to the
vote of Cheatham 107 votes and in the
same county, Roanoke township, with
out the production of a particle of tes-
timony, it is proposed in the contest
ants brief to add 60 to his vote,
In Greene county, John ID. Grimsley
testified that 270 votes returned for
Cheatham were thrown out by the
county canvassing board, and after
wards when it was shown to him that
no votes were thrown out by the
board at the last election, he gave "a
certificate that he was mistaken, that
it was at the election two years be-
fore that 270 votes were thrown out.
The counsel for contestant, notwith-
standing this correction on the part of
his witness, insists that the 270 votes
shall still be counted TO contestants
vote, because as he received about that
number less than he did in 1892, it must
be presumed that the precinct poll
holders threw out that number of
votes that were cast for Cheatham,