The Lexington dispatch. [volume] (Lexington, South Carolina) 1870-1917, 1912-10-23
IRREGULAR OR FRAUDULENT 1OT'
ing In COUNTIES
REPORT BY COMMITTED
In Some Boxes Dead Men, Negroes
and Boys Under Age Were Allow
ed to Vote.-At Other Places Men
Who Could Not be Found Were
Recorded as Voting.

LC lEIeSuld VI IL AAououASn" 'N-Ao
the first primary was made by the
subcommittee of the Democratic
State executive committee appointed
to investigate the many charges OF
fraud in the first primary:
Abbeville County The boxes OF
Antreville and Cold Springs are the
cply" boxes about which there Is any
question. In those it seems that the
managers were not sworn, and some
OF the voters we're not sworn. VI
the votes cast at those boxes GOV.
Blease received 1876, Judge Jones 50,
Duncan s. Total 242.
Aiken County-This county was
carefully distracted. The votes at
the Bath precinct were challenged
and the proof is. undisputed that the
managers were not sworn. At that
precinct there were 149 votes cast.
In addition to that irregularlty, 1t
was proved by afidavits that num-
ber of parties voted who were not
citizens of South Carolina. Nearly
all of them, however, voted at Bath
precinct and are embraced in 149
votes. A few other votes were cast
ty parties that were charged with
rot being eligible to vote, running
the total number of challenged votes
in Aiken county to 1S9.
Anderson County-1n Anderson
county there appears to have been
252 votes cast by voters not on the
club roll and one case by a colored
man without the proof required by
the rules of the party.
AS far as the committee exsmln-
ing the poll lists were able to report,
there were 78 instances of the same
name being on the club roll more
than once, running from two tc five
times, and in one instance as hlgh as
eight. The average is safely three.
A large number of affidavits show
ing that in many instances this oc-
Cured by there being several persons
OF the same name have been filed
with us and are herewith submitted
with the evidence.
Total challenged in Anderson
county, 4S7. This running down OF
duplicates extended down through
the letter "f".
Berkeley County--The authorities
reported ten votes cast by persons
not on the club roll and one alien vot-
ed. Afidavits were filed that liquor
was used at Friendship precinct by
county candidates.
Charleston County-The newspa.
per there published the club rolls
and the authorities at our expense
made an alphabetical list of the poll
lists, but they were not published in
the paper.
The club rolls and poll lists have
been checked partially against each
other and no irregularities found.
Cherokee County-There is report
ed votes of % persons not on the
club roll, but the committee of the
county executive committee reported
that they were satisfied that there
was no fraud practiced in the elec-
ton in Cherokee county, but some ir-
regularities.
In Darlington county there are 16
voaes apparently irregular and unex-
planned. There were 81 votes at La
mar reported as not being on the club
roll The report Of the managers
shows that they were on the club
roll which was formerly adopted, but
in attempting to transcribe from that
roll to the alphabetical roll these
names were, left off. and that they
used the official roll and every man
voted was on the roll.
In Dillon 43 names were added to
l,h
the election, but the affldavits state
that they were taken from the old
club roll used Two years ago, not haV-
ing been brought forward before the
roll was certified to.
The committee has received letters
charging that "a men voted at the
Maple mills and also at Dillon, and
that one man voted at Latta and also
at Kirby, and that no poll lists or
managers oaths were sent in from
Bermuda.
This committee has asked the
county chairman to send up copies OF
the club rolls and poll lists, and for
any other information in it's posses
sion in order that it might deter
minued these, but has received no
response.
In Dorchester County there were
125 votes counted at Summerville
that voted in the wrong boxes. 1t
was reported by letter that minors
at Pregnals' precinct but neither
names or proof were furnished, al
though requested.
The Greenville committee reported
12S votes in Central, where 752 votes
were cast, in which the voters could
not be found. They reported 24O
repetitions on the poll list and ~ay
I'VE are satisfied, however, that a
considerable portion Of this duplca-
tion is natural and proper, due to the
identity of names in different com
munities. On the other hand, many
of those names thus duplicated ap-
pear to be repeated on the part OF
those voting" They reported that
a good many voted without being
sworn.