West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1898-12-01

uc1 plCNtu on louI piaSSS tbaN
were supposed TO be the most COR
rupt aud where the most glazing
frauds were alleged to exist (al-
though we knew better aud told
the attorneys that they would find
nothing wrOng). A recount was
made OF these plicss and Dayton
gained six and McGraw two, SO tho
recount was dropped. The only
reason for suppOsing that the re.
turns from these places wore not
correct, vas becausc some one whU
was either lying or didn't know
what he was talking about, had
reported TO McGraw's agents a
different estimate based OF. an al
legged poll Of the vote or the unre.
liable statement ido by Dayton
kickcrs. who were going to knife
him and play the devil generally
before election, but walked up and
took their medicine straight when
they came to vots.
Now let us sec a little about the
actual figures from this county and
whether SIR. McGraw or ANY other
Democrat hAS amy right TO complain
OF the result. Two years ago the
Republican majority IN this county
was 22l5. This year we held
them down to 1905 for Dayton, u
decrease OF over 800 in spite of the
fact that the blicAn Commit
tee declared all along they would
have $500 for Dayton and made the
hardest fight they ever made IN the
county.
Two years ago at the big election
when there we're candidates for
every Office from President down
to Constable and when the vote Is
all out, the Democratic yote Of this
county WAS 1911. This year at an
off year election when a full vote is
never polled, we got out 1917, the
largest off year vote We ever had in
the county and within less than II
hundred of our full vote. The Re-
publican vote vas not out by at
least 400 and was less than it WAS
IN 1894, when Dayton's majority
In the county was 2022.
We made u careful poll of the
vote in this county TWO months be.
fore the election and our estimate
then was 1900 majority for Dayton
and We so informed our COMMITTEES
and reported 1t to Mr.. McGraw and
the Congressional Committee.
Now we submit in all honesty and
fairness that W. either knew what
We We're talking about OF else We
were good at guessing, one or the
other, siuce DAyton's majority was
1905.
Another mares nest discovered
by the Register and commented on
as an awful example of Ignorance
or arbitrary power on the part Of
u County Court, was that three
OF tho Court we're candidates and
were helping to canvass their own
returns which according to the
Register was entirely illegal and
without precedent.
Now, let's see about this awful
outrage. In the first place the
law requires the Court to do this.
One member Of the Court was
elected to the Legislature and two
Of them reelected as bors Of
the Court. Their present term
does not expire till Jah. 1st and as
members Of the Court they had a
perfect right to be present and
help discharge their official duty ~
required by law. There were Eve
other members to look after the
matter also. for be it understood
by the outside public, that we have
eight members of our Court, one
from each district Of the county
and all elected at the sane time
aud for the same period, q term Of
two years. Now whileIt might look a
little wrong for these gentlemen to
assist in canvassing their own re-
turns il there was any contest or
question about them, there is no
authority for anyone else to dc it
and ia this case there was no con-
test or question whatever about
their election, The Republican ma
jority in The county being 90 over.
wheIming. The only recount
asked Tor w@s ga yhe vote Ter Con-
gres5.