Oxford eagle. (Oxford, Lafayette Co., Miss.) 1876-current, 1922-07-13

turns to his successful opponnet by BAT in the
district Mr.. Anderson and the man who got the
commission in 1920, and who is his present oppo-
nent both live In Tippah county In that contest.
out of 1928 in the first primary in Tippah
county Anderson received 1887 losing to the opposl
ton by SOL, Of which DR.. Lowrey received 3D. IN
the second primary, out of 2216 votes cast in Tip
pah Anderson received 1926, receiving a majority
of S36 over Dr. Lowrey This is the testimony OF
their home people, in the county where both nave
been lifelong citizens and where DR.. Lowrey was
college president, while Anderson was still ploW
boy on the little hillside farm 10 miles from Ripley
where he born and reared.
In presenting the candidacy Of Mr.. Anderson We
contend that he the choice of the people OF his
district two years ago and that he entitled to
and should have received the commission. Out OF
several reports of corruption and irregular practice,
only one formal investigation was made. This In
vestigaton conducted before the Democratic
committee of Union county and the legal procedure
was followed to the letter The result Of the inves
tgation was stated briefly by Mr.. Anderson in the
following letter addressed the district committee
Ripley, Miss, October 2. 1920.
Chairman Congressional Democratic Committee.
Holly Springs, Miss.
Dear Sir:
When your committee in session last re-
uuested that you defer the nomination OF candl-
date for congress until certain charges of fraud at
New Albany could be investigated, and you kindly
granted that request. Now, with reference to that
investigation l desire to submit the following state
ment:
II, obedience to your fiat the chairman of the
Union County Democratic Committee called the
committee to meet on September 81 At that time
I appeared before the committee with counsel ana
asked that the ballot boxes in question be opened
and the votes recounted by the committee Ihls
was opposed by counsel for DR.. Lowrey and sus
tanned by the committee. | then offered atTldavlts
of more than hundred men who had sworn before
an officer that they voted for me on September l.
and counsel for DR.. LOwrey resisted the ntroduc-
ton of the affdavts and sustained by the COM
mittee l was notified by the committee that tie
men who had made the affidavits must appear De-
fore the committee, whereupon we introduced LII
men, who, being duly sworn, each one testified that
he voted for me- Not one OF them was contra
dicted One man who had voted and since dleo
was proven to have voted for me, and the AFFIDAVIT
of one sick man was admitted, thus making lib who
voted for me- and not a one disputed or contra
dicted in any way. More witnesses could have been
brought in before the committee if proper time had
been allowed for them to get there after being
served with legal process In addition to this num-
Der of witnesses we offered affdavts from others,
twelve fifteen at least and these atfldavlts
the committee refused to consider The committee,
not being disposed to grant further time, closed
our case The committee then took the two boxes
in question into a private room and counted the
votes The count gave me "A votes in both boxes
against this number we had the sworn testimony