The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1896-12-02
Totals.....1l094 o.
Toials. 1929 S065 1912 90

SCCuSC W EC llIoSH S>SosAAi'oS ~, SiAN$ w 80
declared exactly as tabulated.
70 take the papers up in their regu-
lar sequence:
J. B. Edwards, as counsel for George
w. Murray entered the followed pro
test, which he read 10 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:
1. Because the election was SO con-
Quoted as to deprive many citizens who
are entitled to vote Of that rlgat, who,
if they were allowed to vote, would
have voted for George w Murray
2. 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.
8. Because the Republicans were
not allowed a representative at the
polls, while the Democratic party was
allowed ali the managers and q chal-
lenger at each poll ic the county.
4. Because the registration law IS
unjust, unconstitutional and void, and
was conducted ia 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. l. Washing
ton.
Edwards s Sasportas,
attorneys for G. W. Murray.
Dated Charleston, S. O., November
9, 1896.
Counsel Edwards said thatit had oeen
decided to withdraw the fourth ground
of protest that was in the original pa.
pers. He went on TO say that Charles.
ton was the only county on which the
contest of Murray vas 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 il was desired to file. Col.
Elliott said in reply TO this that the
board, after it had received intimation
of the desire of Murray to contest,
signi6ed 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 jurisdlc-
ton 10 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 Nd 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 canvassers 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
allowed to present to this board any
and all proof that could legally have
been presented to said board OF county
canvaSsers.
William Elliott.
The State board, through Chairman
Bates, indicated thati it did not care to,
and did not think it could very well
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 contestee,
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 Sigh
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 a few alleged irresu-
larities, but which would not affect
the result to any extent.
Tie board consented to hear argu-
ment from Counsel Edwards, the only
one of counsel who presented oral ar
argument. He 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 he vote OF
Charleston County should be discard
ed:
First. Because there was no legal
Federal board Of commissioners IN
Charleston County. Because only
twocommissioners qualified until after
the election, or very shortly before,
and after all work OF the board had
been completed, except tabulating the
ballots. Because tie Governor did
not appoint the third commissioner;
was not in the State when he was ap-
pointed, and did not know of there
being a failure Of the first three ap-
pointed to qualify until after his re-
turn, and then the third or extra man
had been appointed to fill the vacancy.
Because tue statute says that the
Governo. thirty days before the cleo
ton shall appoint three commissioners
and then dehneshow they shall organ
ize. as the county board of canyassers,
and defines their duties. When the
r. l. u loN