The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1896-12-02

SEVENTH DISTRICT.
Vote Stokes. John Per-
cast. son. rim.
Orangeburg. 1854 2G99 23G 10
Sumter 1875 1855 349 :.
Colleton ......1S2O 1898 222 =.
Berkeley...... 675 5O2 173 =.
Richland. ...... 32S 1O5 223 =.
Lexington .177S 1886 139
Totals. 1899 SO65 1342 %
The tabulatlon as given stood, for
the good reason that no special attack
seemed to be made against it, and was
declared exactly as tabulated.
To take the papers up in their regn-
lar sequence:
]. B. Edwards, as counsel for George
w. Murray entered the followed pro
lest, which he read to the board:
To the Board Of County Canvassers
for Charleston County: You will
please take notice that the undersigned
protests against the counting of the
votes cast at the election held within
the said county on the Sd day OF No
vember. 1896, for Representative in
the 55th Congress, on the following
grounds, 10 wit:
l. Because the election was so con.
Quoted as to deprive many citizens who
are entitled to vote of that right, who.
if they were allowed to vote, would
have voted for George w. Murray.
9. Because men whose names were
not recorded upon the registration
books were allowed to vote. while men
who held their registration certificates
and tax receipts, as required by law,
were denied the right to caat their bal
lots.
3. Because the Republicans were
not allowed representative at the
polls, while the Democratic party was
allowed all the managers and chal-
lenger at each poll in the county.
4. Because the registration law is
unjust, unconstitutional and void, and
was conducted in an illegal, unfair
and fraudulent manner.
5. Because there was no legally ap-
pointed or organized board of COM
missioners for Federal election in
Charleston County.
w. j. Whipper and j. I. Washing
ton.
Edwards & Sasportas,
Attorneys for G. w. Murray.
Dated Charleston, S. O., November
9, 1896.
Counsel Edwards said tbatit had been
decided to withdraw the fourth ground
of protest that was in the original pa.
pers. He went on 10 say that Charles
ton was the only county on which the
contest of Murray was to be brought
before the State board. 1t appears
that no notices of appeal were filed in
the other counties or any effort made
to do so.
One of the chief points of Murray's
contest appears to be that the Charles
ton board would not consider the pro
test that it was desired to file. Col.
Elliott said in reply to this tnat the
board, after it had received intimation
of the desire of Murray to contest,
signifed its intention of reconvening
to give Murray's counsel opportunity
to be heard, but that counsel for Muir
ray declined to appear before the
board.
Edwards in his argument suggested
that the board did not have jurisdic-
ton to reconvene after its adjourn
ment.
Col. Elliott offered the following
agreement to the board on this line:
The contestant, George w. Murray,
having claimed that he had no oppor-
tunity of presenting his protest or con-
test to the board of Federal canvassers
for Charleston County, I, William
Elliott, contestee, do hereby consent
that it be considered that said contest
or protest was heard by said board of
county canyassers and was decided by
them against contestant. and that this
board do proceed to hear and deter.
mine said contest or protest as being
regularly on appeal before this board,
and that contestant and contestee be
to present to this board any
and all proof that could legally have
been presented to said board Of county
William Elliott.
The State board, through Chairman
Bates, indicated that it did not care to,
and did not think it could very we'll
consider matters that had not been
brought up before the lower board.
Col. Elliott in the interest of fair play,
and to give his opponent every show,
then offered this form of agreement:
George w. Murray, the contestes,
having asked the State board of can.
vassers to order that the county board
of canvassers for Charleston County
do reconvene for the purpose of hear
ing this contest or protest, do hereby
consent that said order be made.
William Elliott.
Col. Elliott made this offer because
he thought this case might be slightly
different from any that might have
been before the State board.
Counsel Edwards read statement
from Murray, in which he protested
on practically the same grounds that
have been already mentioned, and in
which he cited few alleged irregu-
larities, but which would not affect
the result to any extent.
The board consented ID hear argu-
ment from Counsel Edwards, the only
one of counsel who presentcd oral ar
argument. lie spoke as follows in
support of his protest:
Mr.. Murray asks for the certificate
upon other reasons, and for the fol.
lowing reasons claims that the vote OF
Charleston County should be discard
ed: