The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1900-01-11


vel aScertained plurality over his DEM
ocratic opponent A recount was. de-
aanded By the Democrats in certain
districts before the Democratic county
court, and they started in and counted
one or two districts according to cer-
tain rule or method: then when they
came TO count the other districts. in
order TO count their man in they HAD
TO CHANGE THE RULE.
From this It is clear that the court
recounted a part Of the disputed ballots
one way. when It was advantageous TO
the Democratic candidate, and another
way when the system would work
against the Republican candidate.
However, the Judge Of the circuit court,
by proper proceedings. passed upon the
disputed ballots and, counting them al
accordingto one hxed rule. aScertained
that NJ. Via. the Republican candidate.
had an honest and clear cut plurality
over his Democratic opponent.
The Democrats appealed the case 70
the supreme court. and the ballots In
dispute being q part Of the records Of
the court, were taken to Charleston and
theRepublican attorneysp pressed forim-
mediate consideration by the supreme
court. But having gotten the case into
the supreme court the Democrats DE-
cLINED TO GRANT UNANIMOUS
CONSENT to have the case taken up
out Of It's order, knowing that by such
a delay the supreme court could not
pass upon the case until some weeks or
months after the legislature had adj
tosrned.
Had they felt any confidence in the
merits of their case. would not the
Democrats have pressed the advan-
tage? Surely, It is not unreasonable TO
suppose they would.
Mr. Via, the Republican candidate.
had two decisions in his favor. ID.
The returns Of the election ofieers at
the various precincts in Monroe county.
IN EVERY CASE THE MAJORITY
OF THESE OFFICERS WE'RE DEM
ocRATs.
~. A decision Of the circuit court,
upon a full hearing Of the case. with
counsel present and the disputed bal
lots counted over again and passed
upon by one hxed rule. This was done
without fear or favor. and which re-
suited In a majority for Via, Republi-
can, over Logan. Democrat.
The Democratic candidate, Logan,
had one verdict In his favor. namely
that of the partisan Democratic county
court, which counted part Of the bal
lots according to one rule. and then
changed the rule and counted the re-
naming ballots according to another
rule! 1t was only by counting part
by one rule and the others by another
rule that II was possible for them to
manufacture the alleged plurality for
Logan, the Democratic candidate.
II the supreme court had passed upon
those ballots, which were in Charleston
on an appeal taken by the Democrats,
the right Of Mr.. Via, the Republican
candidate, to his seat would have been
clearly established. The refusal Of the
Democrats to let the supreme court
pass on this case is certainly prima
facla evidence of the weakness Of their
own case. and the insIncerity Of their
appeal and their desire not to have an
adjudication of the crooked manner In
which the county court Of Monroe coun-
" re-counted the ballots.
It was a crooked count and that Is all
there is to 1t.
In regard to the citation of Mr.. Nor
rise by Mr.. Johnston in behalf Of his
contention, that gentleman not only re-
published the editorial of the Intelligent
Ger. complained of by Mr.. Johnston, in
the State Journal. of Parkersburg. but
warmly commended its spirit This,
however, is a mere abstraction.
II the action taken by the Democrats
to keep Mr.. Via out of the legislature
IL not tlnged with moral oblOquy, and
II the practices OF the Democratic coun-
~ court OF Monroe county were not a
corruption Of the ballots, then IS man
kind without guile. But this is only one
case, and If further pressed the Intelli-
gencer will take great pleasure in re-
calling some things that have been too
soon forgotten. The Intelligencer in
the meantime. begs to remain the es-
teemed friend of Mr.. Johnston, of Nom
roe county.