The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1912-10-09
MANNING C. WEDNESDAY. OCTOBER g. 1912
GIVES some CASES
IRREGULAR gR FRAUDULENT V0T.
ing IN COUNTIES

| ing In COUNTIES
REPORT BY COMMITTEE
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.
The following report in reference
to irregular or fraudulent voting IL
the first primary was made by the
subcommittee Of the Democratic
State executive COMMITTEES appointed
| to Investigate the many charges o,
fraud In the first primary:
Abbeville County-The boxes OF
Antreville and Cold Springs are the
cnly boxes about which there Is any
question. In those it seems that the
managers were not sworn, and some
OF the voters were not sworn. OF
the votes cast at those boxes Gov
Blease received 1876, Judge Jones SO,
Duncan s. Total 242.
Aiken County-This county was
carefully distracted. The votes at
the Bath precinct we're challenged
and the proof is undisputed that the
managers were not sworn. At that
precinct there were 149 votes cast.
In addition to that irregular1ty, 1t
was proved by afadavits that a num-
Der 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 we're 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 colored
man without the proof required oy
the rules of the party.
As far as the committee examln-
ing the poll lists were able to report
there we're 7S inst ances Of the same
name being on the club roll more
than once, running from two to f1Ve
times, and in one instance as hlgh as
eight. The average is safely three.
A large number Of ah5davits show
ing that in many instances this oc-
Cured by there being several persons
OF the same name have been hled
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-
cd. Afidayits 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 eacn
other and no irregularities found.
Cherokee Cosnty-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 une3-
planned. There were 81 votes at La
mar reported as nos being on the club
roll. The report Of the managers
shows that they we're on the cluo
roll which was formerly adopted, but
in attempting to transcribe from that
roll to the alphabetical roll these
names were left of. and that tney
used the official roll and every man
voted was on the roll:
in Dillon A3 names were added to
the certified club roll on the day or
the election, but the afldavits state
that they we're taken from the OLD
club roll used two years ago, not nav
ing been brought forward before the
roll was certified to.
The committee has received letters
charging that "a men voted at the
Maple mills aad 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 its posses
sion in order that 1t might deter
minued these. but has received no
response.
In Dorchester County there were
1925 votes counted at SummerVllle
that voted in the wrong boxes. 1t
was reported by letter that minors
at Pregnals' precinct but neither
names or proof we're furnished, al
though requested.
The Greenville committee reported
1928 votes in Central, where 75z votes
were cast, in which the voters could
no, be found. They reported 24o
repetitions on the poll list and say,
1--WE are satisfied, however, that a
considerable portion Of this dupllca-
ton 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
good many voted without being
sworn.
In Greenwood County there are
reported 17s men as voting who are
not on the club rolls and there are ~
names that appear twice; but they
have not investigated as to whether
they were repeaters or different men
Of the same name.
In Hampton County twenty-seVen