Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1897-01-30
#iseellanepas 8eadina.
STRAIT IN REPLY.
DEFENDS HIS ELECTION TO CON-
GRESS AS LEGAL.

deny the allegations contained in
the first, second, third, fourth, fifth
and sixth grounds of your notice of
contest, except as hereinafter admitted;
and, on the contrary, allege:
l. That the provisions of Article II,
Sections 4 and 6 of the constitution of
South Carolina of 1895, and the act of
the general assembly of South Carroll
ma, approved March 5, 1895, were not
in conflict withe said act of congress,
approved June 5, 1868, or with any
other statute of the United States.
That the state of South Carolina has
been member of the Union, and the
equal of any other state therein, con-
tinuously since the ratification by her
of the constitution of the United States
in 1896; and her sovereign rights, in
Guiding the power to regulate the right
of suffrage within her borders, are
equal to those enjoyed by the other
states of the Union and said rights
and powers cannot be, and have not
been abridged by any act of congress.
2. That the state of South Carolina,
in the exercise of her sovereign power,
had the right to adopt a new constitu-
ton without submitting it, after adop-
ton, for ratification, to the people of
the state. Neither the constitution of
South Carolina of 1868, nor the act of
the general assembly of said state,
calling the constitutional convention
of 1895, required its ratification by the
people. That the said constitution has
ever since been Recognized by all the
departments of the state government
as the organic law of the state. That
the failure to submit the said constitu-
ton to the ratification of the people by
popular vote was in accordance with
the usage in South Carolina in the for
nation and adoption of her previous
constitutions, with the solitary excep-
ton, in the extraordinary conjuncture
of public affairs in 1868 and is also in
accordance with the practice of many
other states of the Union.
8. That the provisions Of the con-
stitution of South Carolina of 1895 for
the registration of voters prior to Jan.
uary l, 1898, and the laws of the said
state passed to carry out said provis-
ions, are not in conflict with the fif-
teenth amendment and other articles
of the constitution of the United
States, as alleged in paragraphs fifth
and sixth of said grounds of contest,
and that in no event could said pro-
visions of said constitution, and the
laws enacted hereunder, interfere with
the right of any citizen of said state
prior to the first day Of January, 1898,
and can in no way affect your rights
in this contest.
4. That the statements contained
in your said several grounds of con-
test, that the boards of registration
of the various counties in said Fifth
congressional district refused to regis
ter more than 10000 citizens of the
state who wereNqualified and entitled
to register for, and vote at, said cleo
ton, and who, if they had been al
lowed to register, would have voted
for you, are so general and indefinite,
that it is impossible to point out, in
particular and in detail, the gross
error of such statements; but allege
that no such number of persons entitled
to vote, ever applied for registration
and were refused. That all persons
who were refused and denied the right
to register, were clearly and manifestly
not entitled to register for said elec-
ton, and that of the number so refused
and denied the right of registration,
large number were persons who would
in no event have voted for you as a
member of the house of representa-
tives in the Fifty-fifth congress. That
full, fair, free, and open opportunity to
register was impartially given to every
voter in each of the counties of said
congressional district, and if any per-
sons failed to register and to receive
registration certificates emitting them
to vote at said election, iJ was due to
their own fault or neglect.
5. That the statements contained
in said grounds of contest that. the
managers of election of the various
polling precincts in said district re-
fused to allow more than 5000 citizens
of this state to vote at said election,
who were qualified and entitled to
vote, and who, if they had been allow
ed to vote, would have voted for you,
is so geneal and indefinite that it Is
impossible to point out in particular
and in detail, the gross error of such
statements; but I allege that no such
number of persons were denied the
privilege of voting at said election,
and that of those who applied for, and
were denied the right to vote, the
greater number would not have voted
for you, and that all of such persons
refused and denied the right to vote,
were clearly and manifestly not enti-
tied to vote at said election.
1 further allege that many Republl-
cans in said congressional district who
voted for the nominees of the Repub-
lican party for presidential electors, re-
fused to support and vote for you for