« 上一頁繼續 »
Mar 31, 1834.)
[H. of R.
He was twenty-eight years old, and had been in business deaf and dumb persons ought to possess the privilege of in Ohio and elsewhere, and, finally, had located himself suffrage, but that the change which has taken place in in Lexington, in the study of the law, returning to his their condition, since the constitution was formed, bas not father's occasionally, T'he facts are similar, and the prin- altered the constitution. ciples precisely the same as in the cases of C. A. Wiley In the case of John Brady, also, the committee have and the other Danville students.
done me manifest wrong, and affirmed a principle which That the minority have not proposed to take these two I consider in the highest degree dangerous to the purity sotes from Mr. Letcher, at the same time they would re- of elections. He voted for me on the first day of the store to him those of the students who voted for him at election, intentionally, “publicly and personally,” vivu Danville, only proves that they did not advert to these voce, and so his vote was recorded. After it was given, cases; for it is impossible to conceive that they intended he fell in company with some of the friends of my com. to affirm the right of students to vote for my competitor, petitor, who undertook to satisfy him that he had voted wherever they may be.
wrong, and “coaxed” or persuaded him to go and reIndependent of every other consideration, I do not quest his vote to be taken off. It was done at his request, think it just in itself, nor that it will be very agreeable to and afterwards he voted for Mr. Letcher. Yet have the the people of my district, or any other in the United committee decided that this vote ought not to be restored States wherein colleges are situated, to see a parcel of to me! foreign young gentlemen, without an interest or feeling in Now, I maintain that, after a vote has been given, common with them, introduced into their elections to in- " personally and publicly, viva voce," as directed by the fuence and control their right of suffrage. It is enough constitution and laws, and correctly recorded, neither the that these strangers have the benefits of protection and voter himself, nor the judges of the election, nor any instruction, without setting up to elect representatives other power known to the laws, have any control over it. for the farmers and other permanent residents, whose in. The voter has as much right to come here and request a terests are represented in Congress and the State Legis. change of his vote, as he has to make such a request of latures.
the judges of the election ten minutes after his vote is In relation to the changes which appear to have been recorded, and this House has the same right to change it made in the Salvisa poll-book, I beg to refer the House to now, as the judges would have then. The vote, when the argument already presented by me. The sheriff and once fairly given, is no longer his own, but belongs to the judges of the election at Salvisa liad no motive to change public and the candidate for whom it was bona fide given. five votes, and their high character is a sufficient guarantee this point is so clear as to need only to be stated to carry that the changes, if by them, were made honestly and conviction to every mind. justly, and in correction of errors. In my printed argu And what a scene shall we have in Kentucky, if men ment I have made copious extracts from a report pre- are permitted to recall their votes, and vote for another sented by a distinguished lawyer, (Mr. B. Hardin, ] as the candidate, during the whole three days of election? It is organ of the committee of the Senate of Kentucky, in a unnecessary to dwell upon it; for it will occur to the contested election between Mason and Williams, in which imagination of all those who are acquainted with our sygthe point is decided, that no parol evidence can be admit- tem of elections and the practice under it. The vote of ted to prove that a man voted otherwise than is shown by Brady I cannot doubt the House will restore to me and the poll-book. Here Mr. M. read the following extracts take from Mr. Letcher. from the report of Mr. Hardin:
In the decision of most general principles I most fully “Robert Rayburn intended to have voted for Williams, concur with the majority of the committee; but in the but his name was set down for Mason. The committee application of these principles they have certainly, as was would not permit his vote to be changed. Andrew Arm. to be expected in so complicated a case, committed some strong did not vote for Mason, as proved by a person errors; and, unfortunately for me, they are chiefly in who heard him vote, but the name was set down for favor of my competitor. As the House bas undertaken Mason, and the commiitee would not permit it to be to revise their work, and correct their errors, I must beg taken off.
their attention to a few of these cases. “In the case of Robert Rayburn and Andrew Arm. The vote of Levi Kid was struck from my poll as a strong, the committee considered that it was a dangerous minor. The only evidence upon which this decision was precedent, to permit a vote that was given one way to be given is as follow's, viz: (page 502.) changed by parol proof that it was given or intended to “The additional deposition of Robert McMillin, taken be given another way.
at the same time and place, to be read in evidence in the * John Moss voted for Williams: proved that he intend- same case. ed to vote for Mason. The vote was not changed, for "Question by Letcher's counsel. Do you know L. Kid? the same reason that Rayburn and Armstrong's votes were “Answer. I do. refused to be changed.”
“ By same. Do you know his age? The doctrine is, (and it is one which cannot be contest “ Answer. All that I know upon the subject is, that I ed,) that, so far as relates to the giving of the votes for executed a warrant upon said Kid, returnable on the one candidate or another, the evidence of the poll-book fourth Saturday in November, upon a note executed some must be taken as conclusive, and no parol proof can be twelve months previous, at which time he put in the plea introduced to contradict it. It is considered much safer that he was not of age at the time of the execution of the to rely upon the integrity of sworn judges of high char-note; and that said Levi Kid had his mother summoned at acter, than to admit the evidence of individual voters to that time, and she swore that he was not of the age of convict them of error.
twenty-one years until some time in September, 1833-I On many points injurious to my interests I cannot but think the 14th. consider the decisions of a majority of the committee as “ By same. Did Levi Kid vote at last election, and for erroneous. It was proved that the votes of three deaf whom did he vote? sed dumb persons were recorded for Mr. Letcher in Lin. “ Answer. On examination of the poll-book, I find his coln coun'y. I have heretofore slown that the constitu. name recorded for Moore. tion requires all votes to be given in Kentucky viva voce, “ By same. Do you know of any other Levi Kid in this or with an audible voice; and as this is impossible for deaf county? iad dumb persons, they are not constitutionally entitled "answer. I do not. And further this deponent saith to vote. As before, I do not now deny that educated not.
H. OF R.]
(Mar 31, 1834.
The proof of Kid's minority here is not such as would “Question by the agent of Mr. Moore. Did or did not be admitted in any court of justice, and such as I think your son vote at the last election for R. P. Letcher; and ought not to be admitted before any committee, unless it was he, at the time of voting, of age or not? were first shown that the mother had been summoned and " Answer. My son, John Shipman, was not twenty-one refused to attend, or at least could not be found. Nor is years old at the late election for members of Congress for there any proof that this was the Levi Kid who gave the the fifth congressional district. I was not at home during vote standing in that name on the poll-book, other than the election, and do not know that my son voted; but I the declaration of the witness that he knew no other Levi have heard that he voted for Letcher, at the precinct in Kid in the county.
Garrard county. George Elliot voted for Mr. Letcher. The proof of "By the same. Do you know of any other John Ship. his being a minor, and of his giving the vote standing in man, in the county of Garrard, but your son? his name on the poll-book, is as follows: (page 30.)
" Answer. I do not. “Also, the deposition of George Elliot, senior, at the
« C. SHIPMAN." same time and place, and for the same purpose.
The committee decided this vote to be good. "Question by Moore's counsel. Did your son, George The minority perceive no error in striking off Kid's Elliot, junior, vote for Mr. Letcher at the late election in vote from my poll, and leaving these three votes, and Garrard?
many more of a similar character, to Mr. Letcher, but, “ Answer. I do not know, from my own knowledge, on the contrary, they propose also to take from me Richwhether he did or not; I think I have understood so from mond West! I beg the attention of the House to the him and from others.
evidence in this case, which is as follows, (page 308,) “Question by same. Was he under age at the election viz: aforesaid?
“ The deposition of Walter West, of lawful age, taken “ Answer. He is of age now; but at that time I rather at the same time and place, being first duly sworn. expect he lacked a day or so of it.
“Question by Letcher. For whom did your son, RichQuestion by same. You voled for Mr. Letcher your- mond West, vote at the late congressional election in the self, did you not?
county of Garrard? " Answer. I did.
“ Answer. I was told he voted for Moore; I was not “Question by same. Have you not, when asked about present. his age at the election, stated to any one that he was then “By same. Was he twenty-one years old at the time of age?
of the last election? « Answer. No, I did not; nor did I know any thing “ Answer. No, sir, he was not. about his voting. And further saith not.
By same. Do you know Shelton Harris? If so, say "GEORGE ELLIOT.” for whom he voted at the late election, and if he was Here is the direct evidence of the father, proving the twenty-one years old at the said period, minority of his son, and his declaration that his son told
" Answer. I do not know how Shelton Harris voted, him he had voted for Mr. Letcher. There is stronger but he was not twenty-one years old at the time of the proof of his minority, and stronger proof of G. Elliot election. being the person who gave the vote, than in the case of
“ By Moore's counsel. Is not Shelton Harris your Kid; yet the committee decided Kid's vote for me to be nephew? and do you know any other Shelton Harris in bad, and Elliot's for Mr. Letcher to be good!
the county? Moses Bryant voted for Mr. Letcher. The following is
“ Answer. He is my nephew, and I know no other the evidence proving his vote to be bad: (page 429.)
Shelton Harris in the county. “ Also, the deposition of James Bryant, taken at the
“Question by same. Do you know that your son voted same time and place, and for the same purpose.
for Mr. Moore, otherwise than by report? and does not "Question by Mr. Moore's agent. 'Did one of your report say that your nephew, Harris, voted for Mr. sons, Moses Bryant, vote at the last August election, in Letcher? Garrard, for Mr. Letcher; and was he, or not, under the
“ Answer. Report is all that I know; and, from report, age of twenty-one?
my son voted for Moore, and my nephew for Letcher. " Answer. I don't know that he did; I was told that he
" Witness himself voted for Moore. And further saith voted. If he voted at all, he was not twenty-one years of not.
"WALTER WEST." age. “By same. Do you not now sce his name on a copy of
Here is proof of Richmond West's minority; but not the Garrard poll-book, for Mr. Letcher?
the least, not even the declaration of the witness, that he “: Answer. I see it, on what I suppose is a copy of the knows no other Richmond West in the county, or that he poll-book, for Mr. Letcher. I do not know of any o:her gave the vote standing in his name on the poll-book; yet Moses Bryant in the county. He was born the 8th of the minority, while they find no error in the decision of April, 1813, by the record in the Bible.
the majority upon the cases of Elliot, Bryant, Shipman, " By Letcher's agent. May not there be more than one and Voris, who voted for Mr. Letcher, would reverse it person by the name of Moses Bryant in the county of in the case of Mr. West, who voted for me, though his Garrard, for all
vote is assailed by weaker evidence. “ Answer. There may be; but if there is I do not know
The inconsistency of the minority is rendered more it. And further saith not.
glaring by the fact, that a vote given to Mr. Letcher is "JAMES G. BRYANT.”
assailed in the same deposition by stronger evidence, and
yet they do not find fault with the decision of the maHere, again, was stronger evidence than in Kid's case, jority pronouncing it good. The evidence of the witness yet this vote was pronounced good.
is the same against Harris as it is against West, with the John Shipman voted for Mr. Letcher. The following addition that he does not know any other Sbelton Harris is the evidence in his case, (page 435,) viz:
in the county. Is it not very surprising that they should “The deposition of C. Shipman, taken at the same notice the case of West, and overlook that of Harris, time and place, to be read in evidence as before men- when both are contained in the same short deposition, esa tioned. This deponent, being of lawful age and duly pecially when the circumstances are stronger against sworn, deposeth and saith that he will answer such ques. Harris than against West, unless the real defect in West's tions as may be asked him.
vote was, that he voted for me,
Mar 31, 1834.)
[U. of R.
That they should propose to take West from me, with “By Mr. Letcher. Do you know whether a young out a particle of proof that he gave the vote standing on man by the name of Abner Duncan, of this county, who the poll-book in bis name, is the more surprising, when it is said voted for Mr. T. P. Moore at the late election, the committee had unanimously adopted the following was, at the time of said election, over or under twenty: resolution, understood to have been offered by the au- one years of age. thor of the minority report:
« Answer. I have understood that said Duncan) was ** Resolved, That when a name is found on the poll- under twenty-one years of age at said election. books, proof that an individual of that rame resides in “Question by 11. N. Vandyke. You have spoken of the county who is a minor, is not sufficient to strike the Abner Duncan as not having been twenty.one years of name off the poll-book, and that some proof, direct or age at the late congressional election.
Have you a percircumstantial, other than finding the name on the poll- sonal knowledge of that fact? book, will be required of the vote having been given by “ Answer. I have no personal knowledge of that fact; such minor, in the county or precinct where the vote is I understood he was bound to Samuel kellar until he was Assailed?"
twenty-one years of age; and was to bave a horse, saddle, Yet, without any such proof, the minority now propose, and bridle, and suit of clothes; and I understood he was in direct violation of the principle which they concurred not to be free until next spring. in adopting, to take from me the vote of Richmond West, "Question by same. llow far do you live from the while they do not propose to molest various votes given father of said Duncan? to my competitor, although there is circumstantial evi “Answer. About three or four miles. dence of the nature required.
"Question by same. Have you ever inquired of him But I should be glad to take the construction of this the father) as to the age of his said son? rule by the minority, as illustrated in the case of Rich " Answer. I have not. mond West. It would take from my competitor not “Question by same. Are you not pretty well aconly the five votes already referred to, but many others. quainted with the father of said Duncan, and have you,
I beg the House to consider whether there is the best or have you not, had opportunities since the late conor any legal evidence of the minority of Levi Kid, and gressional election, of making an inquiry of the father as whether that vote ought not to be restored to me. And to his son's age? upon principles as sound both by the majority and mi " Answer. I am well acquainted with him, and have had nority, I claim that the voles of George Elliot, jr., Moses opportunities of inquiring of him, if I had felt so disposed, Bryant, John Shipman, Garret Voris, and Shelton Harris, but did not feel interested. be taken from Mr. Letcher.
" Question by same. From whom did you receive A. Kavenaugh, who voted for Mr. Letcher, is proved, information that Abner Duncan was bound to Samuel page 294, to have chosen John Boyle as his guardian Kellar? since the election. Could any proof of his minority, at “Answer. I cannot say certainly from whom I rethe time of election, be more conclusive? Is it not more ceived the information, but believe it was from James direct and satisfactory than that in the case of Levi Kid? Smith.” Yet his vote was pronounced good by the majority, and Ilere is not a particle of proof, except vague rumor, the minority see no error in it.
when the father of the voter was at hand and might have Equally inconsistent, and more extravagant, are the been called on to testify. Yet the minority would take minority in relation to various votes in Mercer county. from me a vote upon mere rumor, and without calling on Let us take a few cases, by way of illustration.
the father, when they say it was wrong to take one from The vote of Hayden Dean was struck off from Mr. my competitor, where the minority of the voter was Letcher, as a minor. His father refused to give testimony proved by the declaration of his father, who expressly in the case, and the following evidence was that on which refused to testify. the committee acted.
Take another case: Samuel Griines voted for me, and Basil Prather, the sheriff of the county, testifies that the minority insist that bis vote should be struck off as his name is not on the tax lists of the county for 1833. bad, because he was not of age. The following is all the
James Cunningham states that he heard the father of evidence which is adduced to prove it, extracted from Hayden Dean say that Hayden was not old enough to vote the deposition of Henry P. Horine, page 187, viz: at the last August election.
“Question by Letcher. Do you or not know of any James W. Rucker states that Joseph Dean, father of persons who voted for Thomas P. Moore at the late Au. Foter, told witness and James Cunningham and Richard gust congressional election in the fifth congressional Holeman that his son Hayden was not old enough to district in Kentucky, that were, at the time of giving their rote at the August election, but that he was now old votes, under the age of twenty-one years? If so, state enough; that he was born in October, 1819, and that he who they are, where tbey voted, and how you know they had a record of his age.
were under the age of twenty-one years? Thomas Tomlinson states that Joseph Dean, the father “Answer. George Smith has told me he voted for of Hayden, told him that his son voted for Mr. Letcher Moore at Harrodsburg, and that he was not, at the elecat the last August election, and that he was born in Oc- tion, twenty-one years old. Samuel Grimes has told me, tober 1812; said Hayden told witness that he had voted I believe, ihat he was not twenty-one years old at the for Mr. Letcher at Salvisa. Edmund Sutterfield told election; I am not positive that he told me so. Joseph witness he knew Hayden Dean was not twenty-one years Grimes, also, whose name I have seen on the poll-book, of age at the election; he knew it by his daughter Ma- is still younger than his brother; he has been raised and linda's age.
was born in my neighborhood. I am now between thirtyWith this evidence before them, the minority say it six and thirty-seven years old, and I have no doubt be is was wrong to take this vote from Mr. Letcher.
under twenty-one. I have seen on the poll-books the · Now, let us see on what evidence they would take the names of both the Grimeses: agrecably to the family revotes of alleged minors from me.
cord of our family's age, now at my mother's, and transAbner Duncan voted for me, and his vote is assailed on cribed from the one made by my father, my younger account of his alleged minority. The following extracts brother is not of age. My brother's name is H. N. Hofrom the deposition of Henry'n. Vandyke, is all the cvi- rine, and he voted at Harrodsburg, as he told me, and dence upon which this claim of the minority is predi- for T. P. Moore; my brother is commonly called Nelson. cated, viz.
Smith and both of the Grimeses I have known all my life; VOL, X.--273
they have been raised and live in my immediate neighboro " Answer. I have been summoned to come here to hood.
state his age, and came because I thought it proper, and “Question by Moore. When and where was it that for no other reason whatever. Samuel Grimes told you he was not twenty-one years old
“J. VORIS." at the last election?
Can any one read this evidence and that produced in • Answer. I do not recollect the time, but it was the three preceding cases, and not be astonished that the since the election; I heard him say to Nimrod Harris that minority had not proposed to take this vote from Mr. he was not twenty-one, as well as I can recollect, and Letcher? Harris said he was not afraid to trade with him.
Take another case. Richard N. Bolling testified as fol“Question by the same. Can you say positively that lows, viz: the conversation you heard was relative to Samuel " Question by T. P. Moore's agent. De or do you Grimes and not to his brother Joshua Grimes?
not know of one or more illegal votes given to R. P. " Answer. It was relative to Samuel and Joshua both! Letcher, at the last August election?
“Question by the same. Do you know that the Sam. “Answer. Yes, I know of one, James Moorman. He uel Grimes, of whom you speak, voted at all at the last told me himself that he voted for R. P. Letcher, and that election?
he was not twenty-one years of age; and I do not know “ Answer. To the best of my recollection I heard certainly of any other.' bim say so.
Here is certainly as strong evidence as that in the case “Question by the same. Are not there a good many of Abner Duncan or Samuel Grimes, and yet the minorother Grimeses in the county of Mercer that you have but ity see no error in permitting the vote to stand for Mr. little acquaintance with?
Letcher! “ Answer. There are others that I have but little ac. There are other cases in Mercer county, in which the quaintance with?
minority are equally inconsistent. Cornelius Deweese “Question by same. May there not be more than one was struck off from Mr. Letcher's poll, because he did Samuel Grimes in this county?
not reside in the county; and the minority insist that he “ Answer. There may be, but I know only the one. ought to be restored. The following is a correct abstract
"Question by same. Does not the mother of Samuel of the evidence in his case, viz: Grimes live in this county at this time?
“ Richard Thompson states: Cornelius Deweese told " Answer. Slie does."
me that he removed from this county to Louisville, withAnd because the witness “believes" the voter told in the last three years; about a month before the late elechim since the election that he was not of age, the ininor- tion he returned to collect a debt from the late Colonel John ity, in opposition to a rule adopted by their own votes, Thompson; remained till after the sale of Colonel Thomppropose to take Samuel Grimes's vote from me, his mother son's effects, when he immediately returned to his resiand relations not baving been called on, when they de. dence in Louisville; lie distinctly told me that he had remoclared it wrong to take Hayden Dean's from Mr. Leicher ved to Louisville to reside; he spent several nights at my upon the proved declarations of his father, often repeat- house, and expressed impatience to return to his business ed, although the father was called on, and refused to at Louisville; I never knew any other family of the same testify!
name, or any man, excepting the family living on Colonel There are many other voters charged to be minors who Thompson's farın; I do not know of my own knowledge, voted for me, whose votes the minority propose to strike but have no doubt that he was at the late election. Colonel off, upon evidence of this sort: such as D. B. Hughes, Thompson died on the 10th July last; he was a young man, Reuben Lawson, H. N. Horine, T. Jennings, R. Jen- unmarried, at the late election. I have heard that he marnings, &c. I beg the House to examine the evidence in ried a few weeks ago. After the death of Colonel Thompthose cases, and compare it with that in the case of Hayden son, there was no white person at the farm except DeDean, whom they propose to restore to Mr. Letcher. weese; he remained there till after the election; but whe
It is wonderful that, in this search after errors, the mi- ther he was employed or not I do not know.' nority had not discovered that the majority had erred in “ He attended to the sick, but whether to the farm or not striking off several more votes from Mr. Letcher as property I do not know; Mr. Butler informed me that minors. Take the case of Garret Voris. The following Deweese was employed by Colonel Thompson's successor is the direct testimony of his own father, viz:
to perform that service; but my impression is, that he re“Met in pursuance of adjournment, on the 21st, and mained to collect the balance due him; I may have misproceeded to take the deposition of James Voris, to be understood Mr. Deweese.". read and used as evidence, as mentioned in the caption Here it is directly proved that Deweese lived in Louisof the preceding depositions.
ville; had come to Mercer county to collect a debt, “Question by T. P. Moore's counsel. Is your son, and was impatient to go home! Yet the minority say his Garret Voris, who voted for Mr. Letcher at the late Au. was a good vote. Now let us see on what evidence they gust congressional election, twenty-one years of age or pronounce votes bad which were given to me. not?
Henry Gibson voted for me, and his vote was assailed " Answer. He is not yet twenty-one years old. on the ground that he was not a citizen of the State. The
"Question by Letcher. Do you not know that your following extract from Mr. John Ligget's deposition is all son did vote for Mr. Letcher at the election alluded to! the evidence by which the charge is sustained, viz:
"Answer. I neither sa w nor heard him vote, and only “Question by Letcher. Are you acquainted with one know it from hearsay.
Henry Gibson, late of this county, who voted, at the late " Question by same. May there not be other persons congressional election in this district, for Thomas P. in this county of the name of Garret Voris besides your Moore? If you are, state whether said Gibson was or was not son?
disqualified from voting on account of his not having re" Answer. I know none; at least there are none in sided in this State the length of time required by the conmy neighborhood. There are some Vorises below this, stitution. on Salt river.
“Answer. I knew a man by that na ne, who was in " Question by same. At whose instigation do you give Harrodsburg, Mercer county, at the late congressional electhis deposition, or have you done it voluntarily, without tion, and who informed me that he had voted for Thomas any inducement save your considering it to be right and P. Moore. I am not positive ibat said Gibson told me proper you should do'su?
himself of the length of time he had been in the State. 1
Mar 31, 1834.]
Kentucky Election. ;
(H. OF R.
know that his son did tell me that his father had lately re “ Answer. I don't pretend to judge of that. moved from the State of Tennessee to Kentucky; so late, “Question by Mr. Moore. Were you not born in the in my opinion, that he was not entitled to a vote in the State of Indiana, and did you not reside there until you latter State. He came to Harrodsburg last spring, as an came to Kentucky? entire stranger, so far as I know or believe; and it was " Answer. I was born in Indiana, and resided in that my understanding that he (said Gibson) was just from State up to the 27th of May, 1832. Tennessee.
"By the same. Did you, or did you not, come to Ken"Gibson was employed by Dr. C. L. Jones, as I under. tucky in the character of a student of law, or assume that stood, in preparing to build a new jail. Jones gave up character soon after, and as such reside in this county a the contract, and Gibson removed to the country. Wit- part only of the time mentioned by you in a previous part ness now lives, and has resided for about the last three of your deposition? years, in Harrodsburg. I am impressed with the belief Answer. I did assume the character of a student of that said Gibson told me himself of the length of time he law soon after my arrival in Kentucky, and returned to had been in this State."
the State of Indiana about the 29th of October, 1832, to The amount of Mr. Ligget's testimony, is mere vague settle up some business, and there remained until some indefinite hearsay, not a word of which is proved to have time in January, when I returned to Kentucky. come from the voter himself. Yet the minority would “ By the same. Do you not believe that you are restrike off his vote for me, and suffer that of Deweese for garded by the community, and do you not so regard your. Mr. Letcher to remain!
self, as a gentleman of liberal education and of respectable What is more extraordinary is, that on this point also attainments? the minority seem to have examined only one side of the “ Answer. I presume that I am regarded as being as question! If such vague and uncertain evidence was well educated and as well informed as other students of law sufficient to require Gibson to be struck off from me, what of my age, and who have enjoyed similar opportunities. shall we say of the following case in which the evidence “By the same. Have you heretofore, or do you now, is direct? Elijah Carlton is represented to have voted for consider this as your permanent residence? Mfr. Letcher, and the committee have suffered his vote to " Answer. That is rather a hard question to answer. stand. The evidence which seems to me conclusively to I have at this time no settled opinion; I may remain here prove it bad, is as follows, viz.
for years, or I may not. "Question by Mr. Moore's agent. Do you or do you “Question by Letcher. If you have any residence at not know Elijah Carlton, who lives on Alspaugh's old all, is it not in this county? place, said to have voted for R. P. Letcher at the last "Answer. Yes, sir." August election?
Here the witness declares that he first came to Kentucky "Answer. I know Elijah Carlton who lives at Als- in May, 1832, not two years before the election of August, paugh's old place, in this (Mercer) county; and I know 1833; that he returned to Indiana in October, 1832, and that he removed from the State of Virginia some time last remained there until January, 1833, so that, in August, spring, or the early part of the summer.
1833, he had not resided one year continuously in any one Here is positive proof that the vote is bad. “I know,” county of Kentucky; that, in November, 1832, he voted in says the witness, " that he removed from Virginia some Indiana, showing that he then considered himself and was time last spring, or the early part of the summer." considered a citizen of that State; that he was not a perma
Take another case. T. J. Tharp voted for Mr. Letch- nent resident of Kentucky, and did not claim to be; that the er. His vote was assailed by me on the ground that he was most he could say was, " I may remain here for years, or I not a citizen of Kentucky. Hear what he says himself: may not.” When he had neither the residence required
«Question by Moore. Did you, or did you not, vote by The constitution, nor the intention to make Kentucky in the State of indiana, at the presidential election in 1832? his home, and had within a year exercised the highest " Answer. I did.
privilege of a citizen in another State, how is it possible "Question by same. Did yoii, or did you not, vote in that his vote could be deemed legal? Yet the minority, in this county (Mercer) at the last August election, 1833, their search after errors, did not discover this most obvifor Robert
P. Letcher, to represent the fifth congressional ous one, and Tharp's vote is left standing for Mr. Letcher, district of Kentucky in the 23d Congress?
Among other errors into which the minority have fallen " Answer. Yes, sir.
in Mercer county, they propose to restore to Mr. Letcher “Question by Letcher. How long were you a resi- the vote of D. D. Miller, which does not appear ever to dent of this (Mercer) county, before the last election? have been taken from hin! I do not perceive that such
" Answer. I came here on the 6th of June, 1832. a yote has ever been contested there. When such obvi.
** Question by same. Have you not ever since consid- ous errors have been committed, it is not surprising that ered this your place of residence?
they have so greatly increased Mr. Letcher's majority; * Answer. Yes, sir.
and they show how unsafe a guide the minority would be " Question by same. Last fall, at the time you vo. for the House in its ultimate action on this subject. ted in Indiana, were you not absent from this county only Errors similar to those already exposed have been temporarily, on a visit to your native State?
committed by the minority to a great extent, in the poll “ Answer. Yes, that is all I considered it.
of Lincoln and Garrard counties; but it would be tedious “Question by same. Had you left Indiana with an in- to enter into a detail of them. tention of not returning there to reside, when you came My conviction is that the majority of the committee frorn that State to this?
have in reality committed more than two errors against “Answer. I left there with the design of residing there me to one in my favor, and that such would be their own no more.
conviction upon a careful revision of their own work. I "Question by same. Did you not go last fall from this do not say this to censure them, for I appreciate the diffiplace there on a hired or borrowed horse, leaving your culty of arriving at correct conclusions upon such a books, apparel, &c. here?
number of cases, differing from each other by various " Answer. I did; and also leaving here a very young shades, and from their multiplicity, making it impossible brother, of whom I had the care.
for the mind, in every one, to apprehend every circum"Question by same. Upon reflection upon the sub- stance in the testimony and give it due weight. ject, have you not become convinced that the vote you But if the labors of the committee are to be revised in gave in Indiana was not a good one?
a full House, and their decisions attacked in detail, in