The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1896-12-23
ANSWER OF DR.. j WIN. sT0KSEs
sca;hIns H>ply to Col. Johnstor.'s Notice
of Protest.

ANSWER OF DR.. j WIN. STOKSES
sc";hlns H~ply to Col. Johnstor's Notice
ofErotest.
It WI be remembered that few
weeks ago tae notice and grounds OF
protesf upon which Col. Thomas 3.
Johnston will rely for his contest
sgains; DR.. J. William Stokes for his
seat in the 54th Congress were pub
lished. The answer OF DR.. Stokes
was served on Col. Johnston in Sum
ter Yesterday. This answer was pre-
pared oy Capt. B. Il. Moss, the gener
al attorney for DR.. Stokes in the con
test, and will prove of interst to all
who read the ''Notice Of protes:." It
will be almost an imposs!bility for Dr..
Stokes to be ousted from his seatin TIE
present Congress, as the Congress ex-
pires n March, and there is not sutli-
cient time, as allowed by law, for the
taking Of testimony in the contest and
the fling OF all papers. But 1t IS gen
orally understood that Col. Johnston
will also contest the seatof Dr.. Stokes
in the 55th Congress, which will IN
volve practically the very same issues
as are brought into the present con
test.
The following are the main features
in the answer served on Col. Johnston:
Hon. Thos. B. Johnston: The un-
dersigned, contestee, protests that the
notice served on him by you, that you
proposed 10 contest his right to sit as
member of the 54.h Congress from the
7th district OF South Carolina, contains
mere sweeping allegations; that said
charges are vague al d do not, as they
should specify particularly the grounds
upon which contestant relies II the
contest, so that the contestee may be
informed and know definitely what It
is to which he is required to make an,
swer and against what it IS he Is to de-
fend.
Second. The contestee denies the
allegations contained IN paragraph
one of said notice Of contest, and
alleges that the present Constitution
of South Carolina was regularly adopt
ed and made of force By the said SOW
reign State of South Carolina, and II
no way conflicts with or contravenes
either the Constitution Of the United
States or any statutes enacted there
under.
Third. The contestee denies the al
legations contained in Paragraph 2
OF said notice of contest, and alleges
that the election held on the 3rd day
of November, 1896, to fill the vacancy
for Representative in the 54th Con-
gress from the 7th district of South
Carlina was regularly held according
10 law, under writ of election issued
| by the Governor of the State Of South
| Carolina, in accordance with the pro.
visions of the Constitution of the
United States, and that said election
in no way violated the spirit or intent
of the resolution of the House Of Rep.
resentatives passed on the 1st day OF
June 1886, creating said vacancy, anc
the House OF Representatives did not
have or assume to have any jurisdlc-
ton to control or prescribe the mode
of holding elections in South Carroll
Fourth. The contestes denies each
aud every allegation contained IN
Paragraph 3, and denies, further, that
any citizen of the United States or OF
South Carolina was deprived OF the
right to vote except under the provis-
fions of the Constitution and laws OF
the State of South Carolina, and de-
MES that the managers Of election re-
fused or neglected to receive the bal,
lots of nine thousand five hundred
persons who offered to vote for you,
and alleges that the Constitution OF
South Carolina adopted in 1868 was
changed and altered in accord
ance with the provisions of that Con-
stitution itself. x : Aud contestee
further alleges that the State of South
Carolina has the right to change her
Constitution as suits her sovereign
will. subject to such Limitations only
as are set forth in the Constitution Of
the United States, and that the State
of South Carolina was not admitted IN
| to the Union by the Act OF Congress
passed March 3, 1867, and Acts supple
mentary thereto, but has been a con-
tinuous member OF the Union, the
equal of any of her sister States, from
the 23d day of May, 17SS, when she
ratified the Constitution of the United
States.
Fifth. That the contestee denies
that sufficient number OF persons
were rejected to have changed the re-
suit of said election, even ii the con-
testant should have received the votes
OF all such rejected persons; therefore,
! the contestee denies the allegations
! contained in Paragraph OF the said
| notice Of contest.
Sixth. The contestee denies eachand
every allegation contained in para
graph FIVE of said notice OF contest,
and denies that the managers OF elec.
ton in any way Disseminated agains:
any class OF citizens of the United
States or of the State of South Carroll
ma.
Seventh. The contestee admits that
said election was held at the same time
as the general election, which was
held under the new Constitution and
laws of South Carolina. but denies
each and every other allegation con-
tanned in paragraph six of said notice
of contest and alleges that the Cover
nor of the State of South Carolina ex
ercised his prerogative of Office under
the Constitution Of the United States,
and issued the writ OF ofelection to take
place on the same day as the regular
general election, which was before the
time for the next regular session of
the Fifty-fourth Congress, that the
contestant is inconsistent in complain
ing that the writ of election was not
issued as soo1 as the vacancy OCCUR
ned, for the reason that had it been
Issued then and the election held i'm
nsdiately thereafter, it would neces-
sariIN>Save been held under the pro-
~ tha- old nlan. inn la rrS Of