The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1912-10-05

director, winch 1S submitted herewith
being exhibit Il" Of the testimony
1t shows that there were in 1910 opa
hundred and sixty-four thousand two
! hundred I64,2O white men of vot-
ing age In the State; that in 1900
'here were one hundred and twenty
nine thousand two hundred and
| seventy-six G29,276). The white
voting population, therefore. increas-
ed In ten years thirty four thousand
nine hundred and twenty-four. or at
the rate or three thousand four hum
| dred and ninety-two (3.492) per an
mum. Therefore, for the two years
from May, 1910, to May 1912. add
six thousand nine hundred and eighty
four (e,9S) to the one hundred and
sixty-four thousand two hundred
uS4.2OO and you have white voters
In the State, one hundred and seventy
one thousand one hundred and eighty
four G71,1S4) This includes only
native born whites and those foreign
born who are naturalized or in pro-
cess OF naturalization. and, therefore.
entitled to vote under our primary
| laws. The margin Of thirty thousand
votes. considering the great interest
| taken in the election and the fact
that clerks and sheriffs were being
elected in most counties, and that
these elections bring out the vote
most generally is probably ample.
and what appeared at first to be an
unmistakable badge of widespread
fraud is fully explained.
Fraudulent Votes.
The vote derived from the county
records developed four classes of
fraudulent or irregular circum-
stances:
l. Men voted who were not on the
club roll or whose names were placed
| there on the day of election.
?. Men appeared to have voted
twice or oftener under the same
name.
3. Men not entitled to vote even if
enrolled have voted.
4. The managers failed to do their
iuty either as to being sworn them
selves or as to swearing the voters or
| In other respects, such as counting
state tickets put in county boxes.
AS to the first, there was little or
no excuse FOR men voting whose
names were not on the club roll; and
| quite number OF such instances
were proven by the records and affi-
| daVits submitted. Some of those
cases were, however, only apparent
For instance a man called Charlie
Smith" comes to vote and is enrolled
wv. c. Smith," but in the hurry Of
Keeping the poll list the clerk puts
him on the club list Charlie Smith"
or he may be enrolled on the club
roll in 1908 or 1910 and when the
names are brought forward he is in
advertently or otherwise omitted. He
comes to vote, and having done all he
could the officers let him vote rather
than let their carelessness dsfran-
chise him. But these are only excep-
tional cases. In most instances the
voting. when not on the club roll.
is wilful disregard of the rules of
the party by both the voter and the
managers, and all such votes should
be disregarded. The number Of these
instances is not large
THE Vicious System"
AS to the second class, in every
county almost there are two or more
men OF identical names. some times
more. The fact that man of the
same name appears to have voted at
two precincts or twice at one precinct
raises presumption rather that
/ there were two men Of the same name
than that one man voted twice in his
own name. Under the vicious system
OF managing our club rolls, wherein
anybody can have names enrolled.
and the same man may have his
name on two or more club rolls at
once. a rascal may go to club and
impersonate another man and vote in
his name while that other man has
voted at another precinct and is un-
aware OF the use made of his name:
and in this way repeaters may occa-
sionally operate in such way as TO
| make one name appear twice; but or
dinarily they followed the course OF
voting in name tictitiously enrolled
, or in the name of person who had
moved away, SO that the same name
does not appear twice in connection