Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1912-10-04

We recommend that the state execu.
tive committee call a convention of the
state Democracy late next August
when no political campaign Is on, t
construct a new constitution and rules
which shall require such methods Of
Identification of the voter as shall rem,
der repeating or other fraudulent
methods Of voting impossible, or Al
least difficult and dangerous.
And we, also, recommend that the
legislature take action along the same
line and provide severe punishment
for any one violating the statutes reg.
ulating primaries, and give the execu:
tive committee Of political parties
power to investigate and call for pa.
pers and examine and swear witnesses
and punish for contempt, and thus
give the party power to protect itself
And We, also, recommend thai
wherever the vote shows the violation
of the statutes now in effect the mem.
bers of the executive committee anG
the respective county chairman to re.
quest the solicitor to prosecute the
same in their respective counties.
All of which Is respectfully submit.
ted:
w. F. Stevenson,
T. B. Butler,
j. B. Park,
w. B. Wilson, Jr,
]. D. Bivens,
j. M. Greer,
r. M. Jeffries.
Members Of the subcommittee of the
state Democratic executive commit
tee.
Exhibit "a"
Abbeville County-The boxes of An.
frauillo ond Gold oro only
boxes about which there Is any ques.
ton. In those it seems that the man.
ayers were not sworn, and some of the
voters were not sworn. OF the votes
cast at those boxes Gov. Blease receiv.
ed 1856, Judge Jones so, Duncan 6. To-
tai 242
Aiken County-This county was
carefully abstracted. 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 irregularity
II was proved by affidavits that num-
Der Of parties voted who were not citi.
zens of South Carolina. Nearly all Of
them, however, voted at Bath precinct
and are embraced in 149 votes. A few
other votes were cast by parties thai
were charged with not being eligible
to vote, running the total number OF
challenged votes in Aiken county tc
189.
Anderson County-In Anderson coun.
ty 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 par.
ty.
As far as the committee examining
the poll list were able to report, there
were seventy-eight instances Of the
same name being on the club roll more
than once, running from two to five
times, and in one instance as high as
eight. The average Is safely three. A
large number of affidavits showing
that in many instances this occurred
by there being several persons Of the
same name have been filed with us and
are herewith submitted with the evil
dence.
Total challenged in Anderson coun-
ty. 4S7.
This running down of duplicates ex-
tended down through the letter 'f."
Bamberg County-The newspaper
published the poll list, but there is ne
question raised as to any vote II
Bamberg county.
Barnwell County-No question vi
any vote has been raised In Barnwel
county.
Beaufort County-The county chair.
were no Irregularities.
Berkeley County-The authorities re.
ported ten votes cast by persons not or
the club roll and one alien voted. Affi.
davits were filed that liquor was uset
at Friendship precinct by county can.
didates.
Calhoun County-Calhoun report:
nothing to this committee.
Charleston County-The newspaper:
there published the club rolls and the
authorities at our expense made ar
alphabetical list of the poll lists, bu
they were not published in the paper.
The club rolls and poll lists have
been checked partially against eacf
other and no Irregularities found.
Chester County-The county execu.
tive committee reports that there were
no irregularities.
Cherokee County-There Is reported
votes of twenty-three persons not OF
the club roll, but the committee Of tht
county executive committee reported
that they were satisfied that there wa:
no fraud practiced in the election II
Cherokee county, but some irregulari'
ties.
Chesterfield County-There has moth
ing been reported to this committee.
Clarendon County-The executive
committee report that there were M
charges of irregularity or fraud In tina
county.
Colieton County-Nothing reported
to us.
DarIinqton County.
In Darlington county there are six
teen votes apparently irregular and IN
explained. There were fifty-seven votes
at Lamar reported as not being on TIT
club roll. The report of the manager
shows that they were on the club rol
which was formerly adopted, but II
attempting to transcribe from that rol
to the alphabetical roll these names
were left off, and that they used the Of
fetal roll and every man who voted wa
on the roll.
Dillon County.
In Dillon forty-three names wer'
added to the certified club roll on tn
day of the election, but the affidavit
state that they were taken from tn
old club roll used twelve years ago, no
having been brought forward befor
the roll was certified to.
The committee has received letter
charging that thirty-four men voted a
the Maple mills and also at Dillon, ant
that one man voted at Latta and ais
at Kirby, and that no poll lists or man
ayers oaths were sent in from Bermu
da.
This committee has asked the coun
ty chairman to send up copies of tn
club rolls and poll lists, and for an.
other information in it's possession II
order that it might determine thes
matters, but has received no response.
Dorchester County.
There were 1875 votes counted a
Summerville that voted in the wron'
boxes.
1t was reported by letter that mi
nors voted at Pregnalls' precinct bu
neither names or proof were furnish
ed, although requested.