Newspapers / Daily Constitution (Raleigh, N.C.) / Sept. 27, 1875, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of Daily Constitution (Raleigh, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
!',:. .v..:;.!':' y i', A v rto. r;ftitEiGH,-Nr-0.v - 'MONDAY AFTERNOON, SEWMR27i"4W5iV r.SOi: :, f 7 i i it i i i ii x i i i i i i ! r i - , . t t m . -i I ill - "' " . i'.':;iJii 1 11 ' ' ... , , , I I I II I I . , .. I , .. . "i V . RUESCB1FTIOK, AC. : One copy one month, (pbkUge paid,) FIFTY CENTS, - ' ' -" AdvertlemenU inserted at tha mual ah lotfMr on busineaa bould be ad dreaaed tQ the ConUtution Publish ing Company," Raleigh, N. i. Orders unaccompanied by casn will receiTO tio attention,' Minority Report firom the Com- mlttee on irnvuetja Election upon the Con tested Election from Robeson County. nnmmittee on Privileges and Elections, be leave to rort, in regard to the contested elec tion from; the County of Robeson, as fallows:, It appears that, at the election beldln 'Pi r-iofratothLaConven- tlon, according to the ! returns of the j i.r r Jinn fWr thn several ! nre- JUUgTO Ul cicvn clncts of said county, the entire vote of the county I was as follows ; R. M..Norment received 1,774 Neil McNeil; HS? Dnncan SincUlr " J.JfJ Calvin A. McEachin " rri-il tv x tlia torn first named can X ilia ufvcs -"."r didates an average majority over their competitors Ol vmrijr Upon Ihe coming In of the returns of the several precincts, aiier me eitWw, to the Board of Commissioners, a ma jority of that body refused "to count the TownshiDa known as Burnt Swamp, Lumber, Bridge, Blue ; . aI a viv tiv Springs and units, upon that the poll-books of said townships had not been "deposited with the Re gister of Deeds" as required by law. These facts are apparent from the i.t i.ii,.iuohv said Board transcnpw j . of Commissioners certified by their .-. i r tka viiintw Clerk under tne . . . i nA iiArnto and marked wmcn is buu.- "A which is, referred to.fasa partof this reppru j Ma rri ,;,.if r tha exclusion of tnese townships was to reduce the number of : ' un olVoM! oundldates as votes cas wr . follows : That or . ''' .'ll .ML VOIiHIM1 hv 571 Nell McNeil, 355 Calvin A. McEachin, these bemgJ the number of votes cast for the several candidates respectively in the four rejected townships. ' . . . Iu our opinion4 tbW action upon the t)art 0f the Board of Commissioner was unauthorizea anu um 1 - 7 1 ' ' I We deprn, it-undeniable, : that; the Board oX Commissioners in canvassing - .,1.:- nnraltf intniateriai the votOiftCiea i -""J 7". . : , in discretiou to in- apacuy u" - -iuire al to. Uie legality or illegality of 1 1 ,, 4a,H, nr irrocrUlar- my voteoruie -7 , L of the election at any precinct- but 'that, the limit of their authority was to determine whether the returns trom Tarious precincts wure -u-v 5 . . -t tha entire number cieniauu , iL of votes cast for ,each candidate in the . U Mn vna Tin- .. county accordmg 10 w , r the statute "to add the numberforeturn ch. 62, Bec,2t,) , ... : ':. . ' . -J.. i ii.- .n-imnlcR of the va il, -ma r , . . rious townships' instituted no part of the return requirea uy ' -.. 3 -nivr.tf.n f the results by luO Jaages ui - .1 ht ther were, or inereoi, nw - - -- -were not, "deposited with the Register . r (ha nnmincr In . or ueeos , a uw r". 7 " r nrnn from the various pre- Ul mo Ti . 1 ' -. ; clncts, was a matter anogeuic to the action or duty bf the CommU sioners, iii 'regard to the returns. We are strengthened In thU view by the language or tne viuie, v- ! r tiLn which, it will be seen directs the same personam to-wlt j The Judges or JsiiecuDusv vv- r Kr rVkm mission era and to 'deposit;: the, poll-books with the Re- plater ox ueeo.. -ujr ; CnstituUonart:8,sec.2lit wlUbeob- .(.. ktrATikfAr of Deeds is by 10 means an1 adjunct of the Board of ommlssloners, but .ramer ,mi w arkshlphof said Board, Is merely an , incident of W office. By making the oil-books part of the records , of his dface and directing, tbe returns to be made to the XSomuilssioners, wq tak It Ihto legislative mind intended to clearly distlogtuib between ihe two acts and to ahow their" "separate and Independent character. :" V '4 . 'We are also of the' opinion that the purpose of making this deposit or tne poll-books aet forth'ln section H of . the act above referred to, clearly excludes the Idea of their being used or any other- purpose or considered as a part of the returns. - jsven naaine pou-ow. been duly deposited, we think the Com mlssloners could not have regarded them for any purpose affecting the re turns or even have had any official knowledge of the I fact, - Even If they had differedjn many respects from the returns! made, we think, thai' officers acting in a ministerial capacity " as the Commissioners undoubtedly were could not have used them to impeach the returns. If the returns were suffi cient In form, that is, if they set i forth who were the judges, who wero candi dates, and how many votes each re ceived at a named precinct, at a given electloq the canvassers could not go behind; such returns nor question In anv manner, their validity. We would call attention also, to the fact that the entry made by the Board of Commissioners as certified by their Clerk, in regard to this matter is clearly false in fact, as shown by the copies of the returns, and so Inconsistent with itself as to force upon the mind of any thinking roan the conclusion that their action was no mistake of their duty but a deliberate " and intentional t fraud! How honest men or men willing to do their duty fairly, could have brought themselves to certify that "the Returns" from the four excluded precincts show ed Vthat no votes had been cast in either of said precincts" passes our compre hension! To our minds, the language unmistakably shows a guilty conscious ness engaged in a lame attempt to cover ud a fraud of the most glaring and in famous character a species of fraud fortunately , very, rare In our State here tofore, and an instance of such fraud rarely equalled In boldness and, euor- Itv in the palmiest days 01 Dauoi-ooi stuffing iu the Northern cities! On the" 10th of August, the persons claiming the seats of the sitting mem bers served upon them a notice of con test . under the provisions of the law regulating such contest for seats in the General Assembly. - . No little diversity of opinion has arisen, among the committee upon this " - . j ... . . tA 4.lll subject. : - y itnout entering iuw ui discussion of this phase of .the question submitted to us for consideration, we would beg leave to say : f I. That we do not consider this a case of coiitest" coming Under the prdvls ions of the statute at all. As the Ho rn aus long believed parricide to be an imntMMibie offence, so the Legislature - i , t - m v't ll- 1A cAAmca navar kt Via 17 A mntAirinlated the possibility of such outrageous conduct upon the ' part of men 'occupying the responsible and honorable position of County Commis- idftnfira- The law contemplates but two Prolines of coritesC (Bat ' Rev., chi 62, , sec.'- to-wit r "the rejecUon of letcal votes" and fthe reception , of ille- iral votesV The contest: maxes it, clear, clear that this refers solely to the action of the Judges of Election. In, this case it is not , claimed that any legal, votes were rejected or megai ones receiy.eu The claimants set up no Buch facts, but assert Instead that after said votes were duly s cast' and counted and returned, they i were deprived of their ' proper force and effect by the rrauduient acuon of the Board. We think that in this case had there been no notice of contest whatever. It wouhl;baye been the duty of the Convention to have . considered the record submitted when they offered themselves to be qualified as delegates, and upon perceiving thereby the fraud ulent character of the certificates they Draeented. to have vacated their iseats and Qualified in their stead those whom the record showed to have been in fact entitled to hold such certificates. We are of the j opinion, therefore, that the law fovflrnintr contested election cases In the General Assembly has no bear-J t M 1 ..A.n klo AaoA I " We are greatly, strengthened in this view by the distinction made in the British ' Parliament between contro-1 yerted returns and contested elections. Says a high authority upon mis subject where It appears without going Into the merits of an election that the peti tioner against a sitting member was ap parently elected and ought to have been returned. the House of Commons will reverse the position of the parties by -mi.) .. . '. '. m " ' J ' excluding the sitting memDers anu put ting the petitioner in his place" as duly returned; leaving the election to be controverted and throwing the burden of doing so upon the party to whom it properly belongs." ' If we are mistaken in this, then we submit,1 that the statute can only apply so far as the circumstances of the two bodies are anajogousin spirit net in letter. . It will occur at once that three courses only are possible In this matter: : ' 1. To apply the law for contesting the seat of members of the General Assem bly, strictly in regard to time. 2. ToVoliow this law iii all' things so far as applicabie,l8trictly, and in mat ters where the letter of the statute can not by 'reason of the mariner In which this body is constituted; be 'strictly ad hered to, to, require such substantial compliance therewith as circumstances willall6w,."V! '.' 3. TO i wait for the , Convention to adopt a; series of rules to govern and controT proceedings in case of a con tested flection,' and "then, still further delay the determination of the question until those rules can be acted on by the claimants and contestants. , The tatute whick' controls contests of this character in the General Assem bly's' embraced in the ' 42 section of chapter 52 of Batles Revlsal, which is in these words : . No person shall be allowed to contest the seat of any member of the General Assembly; unless he shall have given to the member thirty 5 days notice thereof in writing; which must state the par- tinnlftr o-rounds of such COntest If the seat is contested oh account of the recep tion of illegal votes, the notice must set forth the number of such votes, by whom given, and the supposed uisquannca tiotis; and if the same is contested on account of the rejection of legal votes, the notice must givethe -names of the nAron whnsn voti a were reiected. No evidence' shall be admitted to show that the contestant received illegal votes, un w he shall also haye been notified the same number of days', and in the same manner. The same notice ol time and lace required in taking depositions at aw, shall be required and proved on the investigation."; Considering the three possible courses above suggested in connection with this statute, it becomes apparent that a strict compliance In regard; to the length of notice required' would hi this case be impossible becausp of the proximity of the election to " the , day fixed for the sitting of the Convention. It would de feat all possible contest and leave the a Kan 1 ii onnfrnt-nf the membershiD of the body in the hands of Jthe Cpunly Commissioners or bherins or tne sev eral counties, arid utterly defeat the will of .tbe JjeopiAri1 Usd flagrant that no mind- can lor a moment enwruuu thought of its adoption by this Conven tion. ' ? . f Th6 third proposition is hardly less obviously open to the same objection. The delay which it would render im perative would be such as 1 to "preclude all; hope , of, successful 'conjest , :irif an time whicn it migm oe reasonsoiy ex pected that the Convention should ait. The analogy, between : the organiza tion hi this Convention and the House of Representatives of the General As sembly, is very great. The act of au thorization refers. in every instance to the House in prescribing the machinery of the election, the ' qualifications of the delegates, the method of return, the manner of certifying the election all are taken from 'the statute providing for the election and organization of the House not by transcription, but by ret- erenco merely, to said statute. Can It bethat this close and striking analogy did "not press itself on the minds of the sitting ' members when on the 10th of August they , wero notified of the intention of the contestants to claim their seats, I Can it be, that they were not put npon the; qui. vive in re gard to the defence of then- rights? Can this Convention attribute to these eentlem en ari y ' disinclination " to claim Whatever legal right or technical' ad- .yantge'they inay have had, 6r a mod esty which would cause them to hesi tate in regard to the course they should pursue? ; It seems to us, that they should be held to have been fully informed as to the law and required to have exercised reasonable diligence in securing the rights they claim that' they f ahonld have conforuMd their action in all re spects posiLlexTith the statute reftrred to, and have come before .the commit tee with such evidenced of diligence and endeavor to comply, with the essential requisites of the law as would ; have producetl an f unavoidable v conviction and the Convention of the bona fideh 6t their acts and the verity of the contesi they suggest. :; - v. . j-. It is evident that the length of notice required by tie statute could not in this instance be given before thai as sembling of tl.e ConventioiiJj We are of opinion that the only rule governing such cases in this boly - is the rule of sense and law the rule of due diligence which would require that a contestant should give notice of bis', intention to contest as long before the assembling of the Con vention, as he might reasonably do and if the member, holding a certi ficate desired to resist such claim, that he must within reasonable' time give notice of his grounds of objection to the, contestant's claim. ,It strikes us that any other view would be inconsistent with justice and fairness aud .utterly defeat the objects of such7 contest. What is the object of notice f Simply that the party having a' hostile interest may be put on his guard as to the na ture of the contestants claim, and have a sufficient opportunity to defend against the same. .This, is1 required ; of ; both claimants if they mean to defeat ,the hostile claim of the other. ' "lias that purpose been accomplished in this instance? ..The notice of the con testants hereto attached aod marked , t4B " we think fully sets forth their claim and was given at an ' early a day as could have been expected. In fact, under ordinary circumstances It would be deemed unusual promptness. Upon the eleventh day of the session, when the matter had been a matter of daily discussion upon tha iiopr' pf the Convention ever since its organization, and when the case had been before the committee for a week," the sitting meui bers came before the com mittee and filed a statement by their connsel which they termed an answersetting u certain grounds of iistance'ip claim. Of this, it was not claimed that any notice had t been gl ven' to' eitheV 6f tlie contesUrits pre?lpus.,jUljU tluiii and their counsel even stated, that they had not fully completed their answer at that timel A topy 'of this paper is ap pended and marked C." It wias'iAtVfyV even days after the election, when.,na tlce of a contest bf this character Was given to the claimants, ilt.,. A . yj,ril3 t We are of; the opinion, that such pegn lect upon me part Of the sittiloAem-. bers ought In rasori?usti mon'decency, to'exclttde 'jthem rni any defence other than a direct denial of the erounds of cohtest set forth in the oori testants notice. . , , v : We do not think they should be 'al lowed to come In udder any trickster's plea of-not knowin'L what codrse'to pursue, and in the inkidle.of the session, ask leave to consume the rest of the tjme the body may sit, irt avague search1 of soradthlrig vrtilcb' rna'y; ormay'not exist. : li tney, .aesireu- pcu ;vuo votes received ' by the contestants, : they should have given theiri' notice .at an early day, in order , thai this, question might be adjudicated immediately upon the sitting of the Convention. ' To have done other wi seems to tis unpleasant ly suggestive of an, intention akin to that which marks so plainly the action of the Board of Commissioners. t ; Again, it should be noticed that the sitting members do not ask snch oppor tunity upon any stated ? belief of the truth of the assertions contained .inthe paper filed as an answer. . r y. ' They do not come updri affidavit set ting forth their belief in these allega tions. They are mere! the empty pleas of employed counsel. "They ask this favor without establishing .even a pre sumption of the truth of the alli-gatious in the document they file. 'They do not even staW; facts wbieli froiu ,'!tleir;nr ture could hardly be, known to, them personally, upon mfirriitiin 'and' be lief. They w ere m erel y " the tech n leal language of the artifit-ial pleader they "aver." . ... . s . Attention should also be girm to the fact that the allegations of illegal votes do not specify the natne'df a single one of said voters. -' Do Uie sitting members want time now to go to Kobeson coun- ty to hunt its Kwamps and' beat up its thickets to see if perchance they, may not be able , to verify thue wild sur mises? The claini Iras ' In oor opinion, none of the attributes entitling ;H , to respectful consideration, it is not in apt i time. It is void fdr Uncertainty. It lacks ' every thing which' coiistltutes an evi dence of verity bona fide.' p '' .iW , As to the denial ' of the facts set forth in the contestants notice, we deem the transcript fro ii) the'record (f Jthe Btard ; of Con'imistsioners conclusive as to (iielr truth, especially in the. absence of iboth . ' direct denial and of all conflicting evi- i dence. . , -: .. -, As to the other ground of resistance to the contestants claini' viz: That the 1 contestants when elected weref; '(and , still are, members of 'the General As -sembly, we beg leave' to say that we ; do not considet the 'right of such per sons to ; holdpeais, ii a 'Convention' of : fhe people of the State an open question in North Carolina; after the example of the Con ventioris of iSiSoi knd 1605. p W&J therefore-condmhjtbat s In, pur, opinion the seats of the sitting, mem-' bers from the county of Robeson, Dun can Sinclair and Calvin A. McEachin, . . should 'be . declared vacant, and 'that Richard Mi Norm en t and Neil McNeil, having been id uly elected delegates to this Convention from said county; be admitted to seats as such, upon'tsking the requisite oathall' of which ( is. rp- , spectfully submitted. . . . 'f J j ' i J. W. BOWMAN, , ' , J. L. CHAMBERLAIN, i ;T : , j. o. wilcox, , . i JJ USUI it KJ1.IJ ,. jy Exhibit " A. A- Transcript of the Itecurtl of the board of conimissioiiers gi yen', - in the returns of Klectibii in - tlio , eleveii townships - tlio votes of which were counted by tii e Board. i ."Mil.- i WUIT13 HOUSE TOWNSHIP. ' ? Dr. Duncan Sinclair, ' lf94 ' Calvin A; McEachin, -f- )3u Dr. R. M'. Norment. ' J; 1 84 ' - Neill McNeill,' ' r - -r- - 83 M? We the undersigned poll inspecUirs ';r for White House Township, do "certify that the above is a correct statement of : -the Votes cast at the said township. r i (Signed) Arch'd Thompson. ?F. P.Hiv Floyd, W. D." Nance, Henry Floyii: iJ, - l .-j J. -. ; . ; ,'fM)i-i ,. J. , WISHABT6,, STATK OF NOBTH CABOilXA, )u i w . Robesou County.. j At an election held at B. : Stahsi Is,. 1 n i .:. Wishart's Township, held this 5th day , of August 1875 the Wholetindmber of r .i , Votes'cast was 109,of which s i -c i Dr.Duhtain Sinclair received ' 88 ;4,r J ,'CaIvjn A. McEachin .if ;-.t j ,88 j . '' Dr. RM. Norment. i .t' -.i tiLitl , Nelll McNeill K , . . . al ' : : Given under our hahds and seals, a . :. (Stgned( i'. HTodd, (seal) Randolph ' v Pitman, (seal) E. P. Bullard. (seal) Hehry Flowers, (seal) B.Stansel, J. P., -Rfegistrarf uti(f r? Mfnl 1(f . ..() ,u, ;; : : ri xuqhv$qp tpfsh?p. t., h it . ,Dr' D.Sinclair, . nUn.tu'l , Calvin A. McEachin, x2& 11 "u 1 J ,Nelll McNeill. - 1(J9, ;, , .,; R. M. Normentf. 'i -i- fi70 t . fve certuy uwi ineiqregoing is a true , . acVrountoLfhe yotw poUed, ? in.Thomp' . sen's To yyiiabjp, August j,ith, .iy75, forV!! i', delegates to Convention Thompson, Williams. - 5 . ... . ,, :T r ' t LUMBEETON TOWNSHIP, A A. At an election held m the Courthouse; . : -in Liumberton, on the 5th day of ,Aiv i; ; , gust; 1875, for delegates to the Constitu- . . tional Convention, the following , pef- ? -7 sons received the foUowing votes: ', Duncan Sinclair, 100 Calvin A. McEachin, 99 ' Richard M.tNorinehtlr -.: ; i 19 ; f Neill McNeill, ..,v , 189 ' We the undersigned, Register, and . Judges decertify that the within returns . are cor root as counted by us and signed ' ' theoth day of August, 1875.1 r-' . 'V (Sigped),E. K. Proctor, Register; Ed. ' McQueen, J udge ;W,,P Barnes, Judge, , '; ' ' ' , : !?:' ; i .( ;s, i . .. ... ' ' ALFORDSyil!il.E. TOWNSHIP.' - ; ' STATk OFNOTIt CaKOLINA ' fl , j . .Robesdn County,' August, ,'ptli,l87&. , . We the undersigned managers ap pointed to hold an election in AllVjrd ville Township, for delegates ,to State Convention, make Xhe' follow fng 'report ; ;s of same: . ' 'I, .'?:! For C. A. McEachin, ' " lid 1 For Duncan Sinclair, - 140 For R. M. Norment, 103 For Nelll McNeill. r n' f '-'103 , ! We certify that the above is- a just and true' atatement of the vote, polled iu Alfordsville Township. . r ; , ; (Signed) M McRae, iRandolph.Wat- i sou, managers. ' -'A ti ; , Sworn to and subscribed Injfore John : H. Morrison. J.' P. ; '-. i ' ;-" ar ttit'u rmwvaiifP " We certify that the foregoing is a true list of; the names of thoae who voted at j. the Ct)nention box for the following v. persons as delegatOMi a i- . i,u-. Dr. Duncan Sinclair received 128 vote. Calvin A. McEacCin i LZJ " . , i i It j i - t- -jX' ' Ti : I : . i -' Hrt ' '
Daily Constitution (Raleigh, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Sept. 27, 1875, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75