The Progressive West Virginian. [volume] (Williamson, W. Va.) 1911-1913, 1912-08-29

OF Greenway Hsuneid that it was q
shame to permit these "darkies' to
vote. Thereapon he was struck in
the face and driven from the polls
by the overzealous postmaster. 1t
appears that many OF these negroes
voted more than once, and q. r.
Buskirk, Democratic commissioner
or clerk, adopted an ingenious pla1.
|of determining this question. AS the
NEGRO voter would cast his vote usu-
ALLY over the protest Of Buskirk, he
would put a chalk mark upon his
back, and one industrious repeater
had ! 2 OF these marks.
In MingO.
lin other contested precincts Of
Mingo the conduct Of the election
was just as bad, fraud was ,perpetrat-
ed In the Interest Of the contestee.
and 1t seems that the county officials,
all of the party OF the contestee,
were directing the election in much
the same manner as Postmaster Fat
field at Matewan precinct. The plu-
raldty of 1880 received by the con-
itesaee DIN Mingo county is changed to
a plurality Of -f57 for the contestant
by the proper exclusion Of the pre-
cincts where fraud was practiced.
In the 10 counties outside OF Min
go and Mcdowell, the vote for Wiley,
the contestant, was 1912 and the
vote for Hughes, the contestee, was
1881 Adding the plurality of the
contestant i'm Mingo by the proper
purging Of the poll In that county. the
vote In the congressional district, err
elusive of Mcdowell county, gives the
contestant plurality OF 2,345 votes.
The vote of Mcdowell county, as
shown by the official returns, gave
the contestee 1850 plurality and If
the returns from that county are not
rejected he will have plurality OF
1905 votes over the contestant. The
question of the validity of the re-
turns DIM Mcdowell county is there
fore vital one in considering this
case.
Fraud by Wholesale.
Mcdowell county is located Inn
mediately east OF Mingo county. Its
population Is largely made up of
foreigners and negroes who are en-
ployed in the various coal develop
ments OF that county. All of the
county officers are Republicans. The
county court, uife body which APP
points the election commissioners, Is
composed of Republicans, and the.
testimony in the case shows conclu-
sively that the method of conducting
elections in the county make 1t a.
most fruitful place to perpetratel
election frauds The ties.
timony shows that the president OIL
the country court, one DR.. III. D. Fiat
field, who DIS also president Of the
Senate of West Virginia, refused TO
appoint challengers, for the Demo-
cratic party ait the various voting
precincts OF Mcdowell county, all
though the law Of West Virginia
seems clear that the county chairman
Of the two leading political parties
shall nominate and the county court
shall appoint challengers of election
The testimony shows that this same
DR. Hatfield was very active in the
actual conduct of the election in
Mcdowell county, and the refusal to
appoint Democratic challengers rails
ed a strong presumption that the
conduct of the election was to be
neither fair nor honest
However. the absence Of chal-
Iengers from the voting precincts is
not itself actual proof of fraud. The
contestant relies upon the failure OF
Ehe county court to appoint challen-
gers Of his party, upon the evidence
that where's Democratic challengers
attempted to serve they were either
arrested or driven from the polls,
and upon his own testimony than
general political conditions in Nc
Dowell county were such that he had
been warned not to 60 into the coiln-
" to make speeches for fear Of per
,onal violence, to establish such a
general conspiracy to defrand as
the rejection of the entire
fote of Mcdowell county. With that
the committee is unable |
% agree.
The circumstances are all strong
Is showing a deliberate intention to
commit fraud In the interest Of the
,ontestee. On the other hand there
s no actual proof of a fraudulent |
1ote In the county. and we can MT
eject the vote
Was Hughes NaturaIizcd:
We now come to the question Of |
he qualification Of the contestee -
lold the Office Of Representative in
congress.
Article 1, section 2. of the Comet
utfon of the United States provides:
No person shall be Representa-
i've who shall mot have attained the
lge OF 25. have been seven years a |
,itizen Of the United States, and who
hall not when elected be an inhabd-
ant OF that state in which be shall /
,e chosen.
The record In this case discloses
hat James A. Hughes the contested.
Vas born In Canada, in 1861. and I
Tas q subject of Queen Victoria: that
la removed to the United States some
ime In the year 1872 and moved
ONE dime later to Boyd county. Ken
ucky. He claims that he was nat
rallied in the city court Of Boyd
ounty, Kentucky, in 1882 by one