Year: 1860

the same position in the safe in which they
LETT it; that they did not think, from the
appearance, it had been opened in the mean
time; that the ballot box used was the
same that had been used for several elections
previous. They further testified as to the
manner of canvassing the vote, &c.; and,
though it appeared from their testimony
that there was degree of carelessness by
no means commendable, yet undoubtedly the
canvass was fair, honest, and without any
mistake


The evidence proves beyond shadow of
doubt, that either the poll book of the
Chat6ed precinct shows the true vote as cast
in that precinct, or else, during the adjourn
ment for dinner, the fraud on the ballot box
as charged was committed therefore, will
not take time to refer to the evidence on
any other points. But, before taking up
that point, it is proper to refer to and decide
one or two other points raised and incident.
ally connected with the real issue in the
case.


AS to the course pursued by the County
Canvassers, in rejecting the returns for the
Chat6eld precinct because they believed
fraud had been there perpetrated, however
correct may have been the motives of the
Board, and however honest their intentions
and do not doubt but that they acted hon.
estly-they evidently Inexperienced their
duties and the extent of their powers. When
returns fair on their face come from the
proper officers of duly established precinct
the County Canvassers have no right to re-
ject them. Whether there has been fraud
practiced at or during the election, is a
question for another tribunal to try-not
for them.


The fraud here charged, and which we
must find to have been committed, if we find
for defendant, is one that strikes at the very
root of public security, and which, when
proved, should not only be the most severely
punished, but must draw down on the head
of its perpetrators the contempt and scorn
of all honest men, and the maledictions of
every lover of a free government, and the
more black and heinous the offence, the more
strict should be the scrutiny of the proof
offered to establish it ; and in such cases as
this, every witness we'll knows that be is
testifying to fact known only to himself,
and therefore, whether his testimony be true
or false, he can neither be subject to the
punishm Mt or disgrace of perjury, and
thus is removed the restraint which the
fear of punishment or disgrace undoubt-
edly often has on witnesses; and if
witness should be honestly mistaken, as all
witnesses are liable to be, there is no means
of discovering the mistake or contradicting
the statement.


TIE pubic interest, too, requires the
greatest caution in such cases-tO say that
the return of Judges of Election shall be
set aside on any other evidence of fraud
than that which is the most indubitable and
conclusive, is to open a door for frauds un.
heard of, and to offer bounty for perjury,
with the certainty that it can neither be
discovered nor punished.


Bearing in mind then the fact that the
presumption of law is against the supposition
of fraud, and in favor of the correctness of
the returns of the officers of election, and
that reason and public policy demand that
this doctrine should be strictly held in such
cases as this, 1 will proceed to examine the
testimony of some of the witnesses.


We have omitted the Judges analysis of
the testimony, owing to its length, but it
indicates the utter unreliability of the evil
dence relied upon to oust Messrs. BRYAN
and O'FARRELL from their seats, in the
Senate.


** AS to some of the witnesses who pro-
cured, or were furnished with tickets during
the trial, for the purpose of preparing for
their examination-and think this witness
one of that class-I deem their testimony of
very little weight. 1t is true some of them
might have been able to testify without such
preparation but they have put it out of
our power to say whether such is the fact
or not, or whether they testified from their
recollection OF the names of the parties for
whom they voted, or from the recollection
of the ticket they perused during the trial.
And when remember that on the first day
of the trial, it was held that witness una
bic to testify from his own recollection,
could not testify from the examination of
ticket furnished him while on the witness
stand, can hardly doubt but that the OBJ
ject was to prepare some of these witnesses
against such necessity. And on the last
day OF the trial, it became very apparent
that many of the witnesses had, during the
trial, been furnished with Republican tickets
for the sole purpose of preparing them for
their examination.


For reasons above given, I
do not deem the testimony of this witness of
much weight.


Thus l have briefly examined the testi.
mony OF twelve witnesses, the exact number
of which the testimony makes more than
the Poll Book shows. I would say further,
that in cases like the present, when the
testimony of one witness does not corroborate
or confirm that OF another, there is undoubt-
edly chance for mistake on the part of
some Of those who swear most positively and
conscientiously.


/ L. 4lo 4oa&;raox.. e Il