« 上一頁繼續 »
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, has not
father’s occasionally. The facts are similar, and the prin- altered the constitution.
to vote. As before, I do not now deny that educated
In the case of John Brady, also, the committee have
done me manifest wrong, and affirmed a principle which
I consider in the highest degree dangerous to the purity
county “Answer. I do not. And further this deponent saith not. “R. McMill. Ll N.”
The proof of Kid's minority here is not such as would be admitted in any court of justice, and such as I think ought not to be admitted before any committee, unless it were first shown that the mother had been summoned and refused to attend, or at least could not be found. Nor is there any proof that this was the Levi Kid who gave the vote standing in that name on the poll-book, other than the declaration of the witness that he knew no other Levi Rid in the county. George Elliot voted for Mr. Letcher. his being a minor, and of his giving the vote standing in his name on the poll-book, is as follows: (page 30.) “Also, the deposition of George Elliot, senior, at the same time and place, and for the same purpose. “Question by Moore's counsel. Did your son, George Elliot, junior, vote for Mr. Letcher at the late election in Garrard? “Answer. I do not know, from my own knowledge, whether he did or not; I think I have understood so from him and from others. “Question by same. Was he under age at the election aforesaid? “Answer. He is of age now; but at that time I rather expect he lacked a day or so of it. * Question by same. You voted for Mr. Letcher yourself, did you not? “Answer. I did. “Question by same. Have you not, when asked about
of age? “Answer. No, I did not; nor did I know any thing about his voting. And further saith not. ** GEORGE ELLIOT.”
Here is the direct evidence of the father, proving the
minority of his son, and his declaration that his son told him he had voted for Mr. Letcher. There is stronger proof of his minority, and stronger proof of G. Elliot being the person who gave the vote, than in the case of Kid; yet the committee decided Kid's vote for me to be bad, and Elliot's for Mr. Letcher to be good! Moses Bryant voted for Mr. Letcher. The following is the evidence proving his vote to be bad: (page 429.) “Also, the deposition of James Bryant, taken at the same time and place, and for the same purpose. “Question by Mr. Moore's agent. Did one of your sons, Moses Bryant, vote at the last August election, in Garrard, for Mr. Letcher; and was he, or not, under the age of twenty-one? “Answer. I don’t know that he did; I was told that he voted. If he voted at all, he was not twenty-one years of age. “By same. Do you not now see his name on a copy of the Garrard poll-book, for Mr. Letcher? “Answer. I see it, on what I suppose is a copy of the poll-book, for Mr. Letcher. I do not know of any other Moses Bryant in the county. He was born the 8th of April, 1813, by the record in the Bible. “By Letcher's agent. May not there be more than one person by the name of Moses Bryant in the county of Garrard, for all you know? “Answer. There may be; but if there is I do not know it. And further saith not. “JAMES G. BRYANT.”
The proof of
“Question by the agent of Mr. Moore. Did or did not your son vote at the last election for R. P. Letcher; and was he, at the time of voting, of age or not? “Answer. My son, John Skipman, was not twenty-one years old at the late election for members of Congress sor the fifth congressional district. I was not at home during the election, and do not know that my son voted; but I have heard that he voted for Letcher, at the precinct in Garrard county. “By the same. Do you know of any other John Shipman, in the county of Garrard, but your son? “Answer. I do not. “ C. SHIPMAN.” The committee decided this vote to be good. The minority perceive no error in striking off Kid’s vote from my poll, and leaving these three votes, and many more of a similar character, to Mr. Letcher, but, on the contrary, they propose also to take from me Richmond west! I beg the attention of the House to the evidence in this case, which is as follows, (page 308,) viz: “The deposition of Walter West, of lawful age, taken at the same time and place, being first duly sworn. “Question by Letcher. For whom did your son, Richmond West, vote at the late congressional election in the county of Garrard? “Answer. I was told he voted for Moore; I was not
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 the last election? “Answer. No, sir, he was not. “By same. Do you know Shelton Harris? If so, say for whom he voted at the late election, and if he was twenty-one years old at the said period. “Answer. I do not know how Shelton Harris voted, but he was not twenty-one years old at the time of the election. “By Moore's counsel. Is not Shelton Harris your nephew? and do you know any other Shelton Harris in the county? “Answer. He is my nephew, and I know no other Shelton Harris in the county. “Question by same. Do you know that your son voted for Mr. Moore, otherwise than by report? and does not report say that your nephew, Harris, voted sor Mr. Letcher? “Answer. Report is all that I know; and, from report, my son voted for Moore, and my nephew for Letcher. “Witness himself voted for Moore. And further saith not. “ WALTER WEST.” Here is proof of Richmond West’s minority; but not the least, not even the declaration of the witness, that he knows no other Richmond West in the county, or that he gave the vote standing in his name on the poll-book; yet the minority, while they find no error in the decision of the majority upon the cases of Elliot, Bryant, Shipman, and Voris, who voted for Mr. Letcher, would reverse it in the case of Mr. West, who voted for me, though his vote is assailed by weaker evidence. The inconsistency of the minority is rendered more glaring by the fact, that a vote given to Mr. Letcher is assailed in the same deposition by stronger evidence, and yet they do not find fault with the decision of the majority pronouncing it good. The evidence of the witness is the same against Harris as it is against West, with the addition that he does not know any other Shelton Harris in the county. Is it not very surprising that they should notice the case of West, and overlook that of Harris, when both are contained in the same short deposition, especially when the circumstances are stronger against Harris than against West, unless the real defect in West’s vote was, that he voted for me.
4354 May 31, 1834.j Kentucky Election. [H. of R. -TE
That they should propose to take West from me, without a particle of proof that he gave the vote standing on the poll-book in his name, is the more surprising, when the committee had unanimously adopted the following resolution, understood to have been offered by the author of the minority report: " Resolred, That when a name is found on the poll. books, proof that an individual of that name resides in the county who is a minor, is not sufficient to strike the name off the poll-book, and that some proof, direct or circumstantial, other than finding the name on the pollbook, will be required of the vote having been given by such minor, in the county or precinct where the vote is assailed?” Yet, without any such proof, the minority now propose, in direct violation of the principle which they concurred in adopting, to take from me the vote of Richmond West, while they do not propose to molest various votes given to my competitor, although there is circumstantial evidence of the nature required. But I should be glad to take the construction of this rule by the minority, as illustrated in the case of Richmond West. It would take from my competitor not only the five votes already referred to, but many others. I beg the House to consider whether there is the best or any legal evidence of the minority of Levi Kid, and whether that vote ought not to be restored to me. And upon principles as sound both by the majority and minority, I claim that the votes of George Elliot, jr., Moses Bryant, John Shipman, Garret Voris, and Shelton Harris, be taken from Mr. Letcher. A. Kavenaugh, who voted for Mr. Letcher, is proved, page 294, to have chosen John Boyle as his guardian since the election. Could any proof of his minority, at the time of election, be more conclusive Is it not more direct and satisfactory than that in the case of Levi Kid? Yet his vote was pronounced gool by the majority, and the minority see no error in it. Equally inconsistent, and more extravagant, are the minority in relation to various votes in Mercer county. Let us take a few cases, by way of illustration. The vote of Hayden Dean was struck off from Mr. Letcher, as a minor. His father refused to give testimony in the case, and the following evidence was that on which the committee acted. Basil Prather, the sheriff of the county, testifies that his name is not on the tax lists of the county for 1833. James Cunningham states that he heard the father of Hayden Dean say that Hayden was not old enough to vote at the last August election. James W. Rucker states that Joseph Dean, father of voter, told witness and James Cunningham and Richard Holeman, that his son Hayden was not old enough to vote at the August election, but that he was now old enough; that he was born in October, 1812, and that he had a record of his age. Thomas Tomlinson states that Joseph Dean, the father of Hayden, told him that his son voted for Mr. Letcher at the last August election, and that he was born in October 1812; said Hayden told witness that he had voted for Mr. Letcher at Salvisa. Edmund Sutterfield told witness he knew Hayden Dean was not twenty-one years of age at the election; he knew it by his daughter Ma... sinda’s age. With this evidence before them, the minority say it was wrong to take this vote from Mr. Letcher. Now, let us see on what evidence they would take the votes of alleged minors from me. Abner Duncan voted for me, and his vote is assailed on account of his alleged minority. The following extracts from the deposition of Henry N. Vandyke, is all the evidence upon which this claim of the minority is predi. cated, viz. l Vol. X. --273
“By Mr. Letcher. Do you know whether a young man by the name of Abner Duncan, of this county, who it is said voted for Mr. T. P. Moore at the late election, was, at the time of said election, over or under twentyone years of age. “Answer. I have understood that said Duncan was under twenty-one years of age at said election. “Question by H. N. Vandyke. You have spoken of Abner Duncan as not having been twenty-one years of age at the late congressional election. Have you a personal knowledge of that fact? “Answer. I have no personal knowledge of that fact; I understood he was bound to Samuel Kellar until he was twenty-one years of age; and was to have a horse, saddle, and bridle, and suit of clothes; and I understood he was not to be free until next spring. “Question by same. How far do you live from the father of said Duncan? “Answer. About three or sour miles. “Question by same. IIave you ever inquired of him (the father) as to the age of his said son? “Answer. I have not. “Question by same. Are you not pretty well acquainted with the father of said Duncan, and have you, or have you not, had opportunities since the late congressional election, of making an inquiry of the father as to his son's age? “Answer. I am well acquainted with him, and have had opportunities of inquiring of him, if I had felt so disposed, but did not feel interested. “Question by same. From whom did you receive information that Abner Duncan was bound to Samuel Kellar? “Answer. I cannot say certainly from whom I received the information, but believe it was from James Smith.” Here is not a particle of proof, except vague rumor, when the father of the voter was at hand and might have been called on to testify. Yet the minority would take from me a vote upon mere rumor, and without calling on the father, when they say it was wrong to take one from my competitor, where the minority of the voter was proved by the declaration of his father, who expressly refused to testify. Take another case: Samuel Grimes voted for me, and the minority insist that his vote should be struck off as bad, because he was not of age. The following is all the evidence which is adduced to prove it, extracted from the deposition of Henry P. Horine, page 187, viz: “Question by Letcher. Do you or not know of any persons who voted for Thomas P. Moore at the late Au. gust congressional election in the fifth congressional district in Kentucky, that were, at the time of giving their votes, under the age of twenty-one years? If so, state who they are, where they voted, and how you know they were under the age of twenty-one years? “Answer. George Smith has told me he voted for Moore at Harrodsburg, and that he was not, at the election, twenty-one years old. Samuel Grimes has told me, I believe, that he was not twenty-one years old at the election; I am not positive that he told me so. Joseph Grimes, also, whose name I have seen on the poll-book, is still younger than his brother; he has been raised and
! was born in my neighborhood. I am now between thirty
six and thirty-seven years old, and I have no doubt he is under twenty-one. I have seen on the poll-books the names of both the Grimeses: agreeably to the family record of our family’s age, now at my mother's, and transcribed from the one made by my father, my younger brother is not of age. My brother's name is H. N. Horine, and he voted at Harrodsburg, as he told me, and for T. P. Moore; my brother is commonly called Nelson. Smith and both of the Grimeses I have known all my life;
they have been raised and live in my immediate neighbor" hood. “Question by Moore. When and where was it that Samuel Grimes told you he was not twenty-one years old at the last election? ** Answer. I do not recollect the time, but it was since the election; I heard him say to Nimrod Harris that he was not twenty-one, as well as I can recollect, and Harris said he was not afraid to trade with him. “Question by the same. Can you say positively that the conversation you heard was relative to Samuel Grimes and not to his brother Joshua Grimes? “Answer. It was relative to Samuel and Joshua both “Question by the same. Do you know that the Samuel Grimes, of whom you speak, voted at all at the last election? ** Answer. him say so. “Question by the same. Are not there a good many other Grimeses in the county of Mercer that you have but little acquaintance with? “Answer. There are others that I have but little acquaintance with? “Question by same. May there not be more than one Samuel Grimes in this county 2 “Answer. There may be, but I know only the one. “Question by same. Does not the mother of Samuel Grimes live in this county at this time? “Answer. She does.” And because the witness “believes” the voter told him since the election that he was not of age, the minority, in opposition to a rule adopted by their own votes, propose to take Samuel Grimes's vote from me, his mother and relations not having been called on, when they declared it wrong to take Hayden Dean's from Mr. Letcher upon the proved declarations of his father, often repeated, although the father was called on, and refused to testify! There are many other voters charged to be minors who voted for me, whose votes the minority propose to strike off, upon evidence of this sort: such as D. B. Hughes, Reuben Lawson, H. N. Horine, T. Jennings, R. Jennings, &c. I beg the House to examine the evidence in those cases, and compare it with that in the case of Hayden Dean, whom they propose to restore to Mr. Letcher. It is wonderful that, in this search after errors, the minority had not discovered that the majority had erred in not striking off several more votes from Mr. Letcher as minors. Take the case of Garret Voris. The following is the direct testimony of his own father, viz: “Met in pursuance of adjournment, on the 21st, and proceeded to take the deposition of James Voris, to be read and used as evidence, as mentioned in the caption of the preceding depositions. “Question by T. P. Moore's counsel. Is your son, Garret Voris, who voted for Mr. Letcher at the late Au#. congressional election, twenty-one years of age or not! “Answer. He is not yet twenty-one years old. “Question by Letcher. Do you not know that your son did vote for Mr. Letcher at the election alluded to “Answer. I neither saw nor heard him vote, and only know it from hearsay. “Question by same. May there not be other persons in this county of the name of Garret Voris besides your son : “Answer. I know none; at least there are none in my neighborhood. There are some Vorises below this, on Salt river. “Question by same. At whose instigation do you give this deposition, or have you done it voluntarily, without any inducement save your considering it to be right and proper you should do so?
To the best of my recollection I heard
“Answer. I have been summoned to come here to state his age, and came because I thought it proper, and for no other reason whatever. “J. VORIS.” Can any one read this evidence and that produced in the three preceding cases, and not be astonished that the minority had not proposed to take this vote from Mr. Letcher? Take another case. lows, viz: “Question by T. P. Moore’s agent. DQ or do you not know of one or more illegal votes given to R. P. Letcher, at the last August election? “Answer. Yes, I know of one, James Moorman. He told me himself that he voted for R. P. Letcher, and that he was not twenty-one years of age; and I do not know certainly of any other.” Here is certainly as strong evidence as that in the case of Abner Duncan or Samuel Grimes, and yet the minority see no error in permitting the vote to stand for Mr. Letcher! There are other cases in Mercer county, in which the minority are equally inconsistent. Cornelius Deweese was struck off from Mr. Letcher’s poll, because he did not reside in the county; and the minority insist that he ought to be restored. The following is a correct abstract of the evidence in his case, viz: “Richard Thompson states: Cornelius Deweese told me that he removed from this county to Louisville, within the last three years; about a month before the late election he returned to collect a debt from the late Colonel John Thompson; remained till after the sale of Colonel Thompson's effects, when he immediately returned to his residence in Louisville; he distinctly told me that he had removed to Louisville to reside; he spent several nights at my house, and expressed impatience to return to his business at Louisville; I never knew any other family of the same name, or any man, excepting the family living on Colonel Thompson’s farm; I do not know of my own knowledge, but have no doubt that he was at the late election. Colonel Thompson died on the 10th July last; he was a young man, unmarried, at the late election. I have heard that he married a few weeks ago. After the death of Colonel Thompson, there was no white person at the farm except Deweese; he remained there till after the election; but whether he was employed or not I do not know. “He attended to the sick, but whether to the farm or property I do not know; Mr. Butler informed me that Deweese was employed by Colonel Thompson's successor to perform that service; but my impression is, that he remained to collect the balance due him; I may have misunderstood Mr. Deweese.” . Here it is directly proved that Deweese lived in Louisville; had come to Mercer county to collect a debt, and was impatient to go home! Yet the minority say his was a good vote. Now let us see on what evidence they pronounce votes bad which were given to me. Henry Gibson voted for me, and his vote was assailed on the ground that he was not a citizen of the State. The following extract from Mr. John Ligget's deposition is all the evidence by which the charge is sustained, viz: “Question by Letcher. Are you acquainted with one Henry Gibson, late of this county, who voted, at the late congressional election in this district, for Thomas P. Moore? If you are, state whether said Gibson was or was not disqualified from voting on account of his not having resided in this State the length of time required by the constitution. “Answer. I knew a man by that name, who was in Harrodsburg, Mercer county, at the late congressional election, and who informed me that he had voted for Thomas P. Moore. I am not positive that said Gibson told me himself of the length of time he had been in the State. I
Richard N. Bolling testified as sol
know that his son did tell me that his father had lately removed from the State of Tennessee to Kentucky; so late, in my opinion, that he was not entitled to a vote in the latter State. He came to Harrodsburg last spring, as an entire stranger, so far as I know or believe; and it was my understanding that he (said Gibson) was just from Tennessee. “Gibson was employed by Dr. C. L. Jones, as I understood, in preparing to build a new jail. Jones gave up the contract, and Gibson removed to the country. Wit. ness now lives, and has resided for about the last three years, in Harrodsburg. I am impressed with the belief that said Gibson told me himself of the length of time he had been in this State.” The amount of Mr. Ligget's testimony, is mere vague indefinite hearsay, not a word of which is proved to have come from the voter himself. Yet the minority would strike off his vote for me, and suffer that of Deweese for Mr. Letcher to remain! What is more extraordinary is, that on this point also the minority seem to have examined only one side of the question! If such vague and uncertain evidence was sufficient to require Gibson to be struck off from me, what shall we say of the following case in which the evidence is direct? . Elijah Carlton is represented to have voted for Mr. Letcher, and the committee have suffered his vote to stand. The evidence which seems to me conclusively to prove it bad, is as follows, viz. “Question by Mr. Moore's agent. Do you or do you not know Elijah Carlton, who lives on Alspaugh's old place, said to have voted for R. P. Letcher at the last August election? “Answer. I know Elijah Carlton who lives at Als. paugh’s old place, in this (Mercer) county; and I know that he removed from the State of Virginia some time last spring, or the early part of the summer.” Here is positive proof that the vote is bad. “I know,” says the witness, “that he removed from Virginia some time last spring, or the early part of the summer.” Take another case. T. J. Tharp voted for Mr. Letcher. His vote was assailed by me on the ground that he was not a citizen of Kentucky. Hear what he says himself: “Question by Moore. Did you, or did you not, vote in the State of indiana, at the presidential election in 1832? “Answer. I did. “Question by same. Did you, or did you not, vote in this county (Mercer) at the last August election, 1833, for Robert P. Letcher, to represent the fifth congressional district of Kentucky in the 23d Congress? “Answer. Yes, sir. “Question by Letcher. How long were you a resident of this (Mercer) county, before the last election? “Answer. I came here on the 6th of June, 1832. “Question by same. Have you not ever since consid. ered this your place of residence? “Answer. Yes, sir. “Question by same. Last fall, at the time you voted in Indiana, were you not absent from this county only temporarily, on a visit to your native State? ** Answer. Yes, that is all I considered it. “Question by same. Had you left Indiana with an intention of not returning there to reside, when you came from that State to this? “Answer. I left there with the design of residing there no more. “question by same. Did you not go last fall from this place there on a hired or borrowed horse, leaving your books, apparel, &c. here? “Answer. I did; and also leaving here a very young brother, of whom I had the care. “Question by same. Upon reflection upon the subject, have you not become convinced that the vote you gave in Indiana was not a good one?
“Answer. I don’t pretend to judge of that. “Question by Mr. Moore. Were you not born in the State of Indiana, and did you not reside there until you came to Kentucky? “Answer. I was born in Indiana, and resided in that State up to the 27th of May, 1832. “By the same. Did you, or did you not, come to Kentucky in the character of a student of law, or assume that character soon after, and as such reside in this county a part only of the time mentioned by you in a previous part of your deposition? “Answer. I did assume the character of a student of law soon after my arrival in Kentucky, and returned to the State of Indiana about the 29th of October, 1832, to settle up some business, and there remained until some time in January, when I returned to Kentucky. “By the same. Do you not believe that you are regarded by the community, and do you not so regard yourself, as a gentleman of liberal education and of respectable attainments? “Answer. I presume that I am regarded as being as well educated and as well informed as other students of law of my age, and who have enjoyed similar opportunities. “By the same. Have you heretofore, or do you now, consider this as your permanent residence? “Answer. That is rather a hard question to answer. I have at this time no settled opinion; I may remain here for years, or I may not. “Question by Letcher. all, is it not in this county? “Answer. Yes, sir.” Here the witness declares that he first came to Kentucky in May, 1832, not two years before the election of August, 1833; that he returned to Indiana in October, 1832, and remained there until January, 1833, so that, in August, 1833, he had not resided one year continuously in any one county of Kentucky; that, in November, 1832, he voted in Indiana, showing that he then considered himself and was considered a citizen of that State; that he was not a permanent resident of Kentucky, and did not claim to be; that the most he could say was, “I may remain here for years, or I may not.” When he had neither the residence required by the constitution, nor the intention to make Kentucky his home, and had within a year exercised the highest privilege of a citizen in another State, how is it possible that his vote could be deemed legal? Yet the minority, in their search after errors, did not discover this most obvious one, and Tharp's vote is left standing for Mr. Letcher. Among other errors into which the minority have fallen in Mercer county, they propose to restore to Mr. Letcher the vote of D. D. Miller, which does not appear ever to have been taken from him! I do not perceive that such a vote has ever been contested there. When such obvious errors have been committed, it is not surprising that they have so greatly increased. Mr. Letcher's majority; and they show how unsafe a guide the minority would be, for the House in its ultimate action on this subject. Errors similar to those already exposed have been committed by the minority to a great extent, in the poll of Lincoln and Garrard counties; but it would be tedious to enter into a detail of them. . . My conviction is that the majority of the committee have in reality committed more than two errors against me to one in my favor, and that such would be their own conviction upon a careful revision of their own work:... I do not say this to censure them, for I appreciate the difficulty of arriving at correct conclusions, upon such a number of cases, differing from each other by various shades, and from their multiplicity, making it impossible for the mind, in every one, to apprehend, every circumstance in the testimony and give it due weight. But if the labors of the committee are to be revised in a full House, and their decisions attacked in detail, in
If you have any residence at