Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

The resolution of the House asking him to submit the report of Joseph D.

Weeks, special agent in charge of statistics of wages and manufacturing industries.

JANUARY 17, 1884.-Referred to the Committee on Labor and ordered to be printed.

[ocr errors]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, CENSUS OFFICE,

Washington, D. O., January 15, 1884. SIR: In response to the resolution submitted by Mr. Hopkins, of Pennsylvania, and agreed to by the House of Representatives, that the Superintendent of the Census be requested to submit to the House the report of Joseph D. Weeks, special agent in charge of statistics of wages in manufacturing industries, &c., I have the honor to state that the report in question has been received by this office, in manuscript, from Mr. Weeks, but it has not been revised, or arranged in form for printing or distribution. This will be done at the earliest practicable moment, and the report placed in the hands of the Public Printer, with a view to forwarding advance proof-sheets thereof for the use of the House.

Presuming that this action will be in accord with the purpose of the resolution of the House, I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

C. W. SEATON,

Superintendent of Census. Hon. JOHN G. CARLISLE,

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

. Doc

POOL VS. SKINNER.

PAPERS

IN THE CONTESTED-ELECTION CASE OF

C. C. POOL vs. T. G. SKINNER,

OF THE FIRST DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA.

ANUARY 17, 1884.-Referred to the Committee on Elections and ordered to be printed

WASHINGTON, D. C., December 18, 18 8 SIR: I hereby notify you that I shall contest your right to a seat in the Forty-eighth Congress, and that I shall take the steps required by law in such contest.

The grounds on which I shall base the contest and deny your right to the seat are mainly the following, to wit:

First. The proclamation of the governor of the State of North Carolina, calling the election to fill the vacancy caused by the death of the Hon. Walter F. Pool, directed it to be held in the district established by the act of the legislature at its session wbich commenced in January, 1833, composed of the counties of Beaufort, Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Curriruck, Dare, Gates, Hertford, Hyde, Martin, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Pitt, Tyrrell, and Washington. The election was accordingly held in the above-named counties only, and the county of Bertie was not permitted to participate in the election.

The election should have been held in the district as constituted previous to the reapportionment of the State and subsisting at the tiine the elections were held for the Forty eighth Congress, in November, 1882, from which district so constituted the llon. Walter F. Pool was elected to the Forty-eighth Congress, and in which district the county of Bertie was comprised and the county of Carteret was not comprised. Wherefore I claim that the vote of the county of Carteret should not be reckoned in the election to fill the said vacancy, and the coulty of Bertie should be allowed an opportunity of voting for a Representative to fill said vacancy.

And I allege and a ver that, estimating from the known vote of the county of Bertie at every election for the last ten years involving the party issues passed upon in this election pow in contest, that county, if it had been allowed to vote, would have given to me a majority of not less than 600 votes against yon; and it was for this known reason that, in the reapportionment of districts in 1883, as aforesaid, this county of Bertie was detached from the first Congressional district and the county of Carteret was attached to it.

Second. I allege that in the county of Pitt irregularities occurred, and deliberato frauds were practiced at several of the voting precincts, by which 'I was deprived, at Pactolus precinct of a majority of 120 votes; and at Cobb's precinct 40 votes, legally cast for me, were thrown out and not counted; and at Roundtree's precinct 130 votos legally cast for me, were thrown out and not counted; and at Beaver Dam precinct 74 votes, legally cast for me, were thrown out and not counted. And to be more specific and precise, I allege and set forth:

1. That, at Pactolus precinct, in the county of Pitt, the registrar, a partisan and supporter of yours, who legally and officially bad the sole possession and custody of the registration book of the precinct, did, on the evening preceding the day of the election, negligently and willfully permit the said registration book to go into the possession and custody of another person, to me unknown, so that the said book was concealed or destroyed, and could not be had and used on the next day for the purpose of holding the election, in consequence of which, no election was, or could legally be, held at said precinct, and those electors entitled to vote then were thus deprived of their right to participate in the election. And all this was fraudulently allowed and done because it was known, or confidently believed, from the usual vote cast at that precinct in former elections, and from the known contents of said registration book, being the list of the legal and registered voters, that, should a legal election be held there, I should receive over you at least 160 majority.

II. Tbat at Col precinct, in the county of Pitt, forty votes, legally cast for me, were thrown out by the poll-holders, and were not counted, upon some frivolous and untenable pretense that the ballots were, on their face, irregular and unlawful.

III. That at Beaver Dam precinct, in the county of Pitt, 74 votes, legally cast for me, were thrown out by the poll-holders, and were not counted, upon some frivolous and untenable pretense that the ballots were, on their face, irregular and unlawful.

IV. That at Roundtree's precinct, in the county of Pitt, 130 votes, legally cast for me, were thrown out by the poll-holders, and were not counted, upon some frivolous and untenable pretence that the ballots were, on their face, irregular and unlawful. And as to 34 of said 130 votes, the pretense for rejecting them was (I am informed) that the name on the ballots was Charles C. Tool, instead of Charles C. Pool; and, as to 22 of the said 130 votes, the pretense for rejecting them was because the name on the ballots was Charlie C. Pool, instead of Charles C. Pool; and, as to 74 of the 130 votes, the pretense for rejecting them was because the name on the ballots was Charles C. Poll, instead of Charles C. Pool; and I claim that all said 130 ballots were meant for me, and shonld now be counted for me; and I charge that partisans and supporters of you, with intent to defraud, prepared and had printed the said erroneous ballots, and imposed them upon ignorant aud unsuspecting electors, whose intent was to vote for me, and against you.

V. That at Bethel precinct, in the county of Pitt, there were 40 or more electors, entitled to be registered as voters, who lawfully applied for registration, and were refused on unlawful and frivolous pretexts, which electors, had they been registered, would have voted for me, and against you.

And I protest and claim that, because of the said frauds and multifarious evil an corrupt practices on the part of the officers preparing for and holding the electiod at said several precincts in the County of Pitt, by which legal electors were denien and deprived of the right of participation in the election, if there can be no certaintd arrived at in regard to the true intention and suffrages of the electors of said countyy then the entire vote of the County of Pitt should be discarded from the count, or else, a new election for the district should be ordered.

And I finally allege and aver that, if the said frauds and irregularities shall be corrected, and the true vote of the district counted, as it was cast, or meant by the electors to be cast, it will then appear that I was lawfully elected a member of the Forty-eighth Congress, and that I am entitled to be seated as a member, and that you were not lawfully elected, and are not entitled to retain a seat as a member of said Congress. Very respectfully,

CHARLES C. POOL. 'THOMAS G. SKINNER, Esq.

(Indorsed:) C. C. Pool, contestant, v. Thos. Skinner, contestee. Notice of contest. Copy served December 18, 1883.

WASHINGTON, D. C., January 12, 1884. Sir: In answer to the notice of your intention to contest my right to a seat as a member of tbe Forty-Eighth Congress from the first district of North Carolina, which notice was served upon me December 18, 1883, saving and reserving to myself all benefit and advantage of exception which can be taken to the same by reason of the many errors, uncertainties, and defects in the said notice, and in no respect waiving any objection thereto, for answer thereunto, or unto so much and such parts thereof as I am advised is or are material and necessary for me to make answer unto, I say:

I. That I admit that the proclamation of J. L. Robinson, lieutenant-governor and acting governor of North Carolina, issued on the day of

1883, directed the election to be held in the counties mentioned in your notice of contest, to wit, Beaufort, Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hertford, Hyde, Martin, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Pitt, Tyrrell, and Washington; that the county of Bertie did not participate in said election, and ought not to have participated therein; and that the county of Carteret did participate therein, as it ought to have done.

That the act of the general assembly of North Carolina, ratified March 6, 1883, to wit, "An act to divide the State into Congressional districts” (Acts 1883, chapter 226), divided the State into nine Congressional districts, and that the said act took effect immediately upon its passage, and all laws inconsistent therewith, more especially the act dividing the State of North Carolina into eight Congressional districts (Acts 1871–72, chapter 171), were by said act of 1883 repealed. A copy of this act will be produced, when required, as a part of this answer.

That the proclamation of the governor and the election held in accordance therewith in the first district of North Carolina, on November 20, 1883, were strictly in accordance with and under and by virtne of the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of North Carolina ; that said proclamation and election were legal and valid, and said election was duly held in the only existing first district of North Carolina, represented by Hon. W. F. Pool at the time of his death, and by said election I was elected as a member of the Forty-eighth Congress from the said first district.

And further answering, I say that under the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of North Carolina the final determination of all questions arising conecrning the division of the State into districts is left to the state; that the executive department of the State is charged by the Constitution of the United States with the duty of calling special elections to fill all vacancies that may occur in the representation from the State; and that when the legislative power has, in the exercise of its legitimate functions, repealed an act establishing eight districts, and passed an act establishing new districts, the first district having been slightly changed in boundary but not in identity, and when the executive department, in the legitimate exercise of its functions, has, in conformity with the legislative action, decided that the existing first district is the proper district in which the election should be holden, that the decision of such question is or should be binding upon the House of Representatives.

That while it is true that the House is the sole judge of the election, qualification, and returns of its members, in such determination the action of the State in establishing new districts, and the action of the executive, the sole and proper constitutional authority in determiuing what is the district in case of a vacancy, should not be arbitrarily overridden by the House of Representatives, but should be conclusive.

For these and other reasons, I say that the vote of the county of Carteret, forming a part of the first district, must be counted in the returns of the vote of said district, and the county of Bertie ought not to have voted in said district.

But I deny that the vote of Bertie would have changed the result of the election, whether the vote of Carteret should have been counted or not.

Secondly. In regard to the vague, uncertain, and erroneous charges brought against the returns of the votes of the several precincty in Pitt County, I reply in the first place, generally and specifically, that the allegations are too indefinite to be entertained by the House of Representatives, or to require me to answer, and I do not waive any objection upon this account. I deny, npon information and belief, that there were any frauds, irregularities, or errors in the several precincts mentioned, Pactolus, Beaver Dam (otherwise known as Cobb's, and not a separate precinct, as stated in your notice), Bethel and Rounheed's, in the county of Pitt, or any of them.

That the election officers acted in accordance with the law in the conduct of the election; that no legal ballots cast for you were rejected, and no illegal ballots for me were received. That the action of the election officers was reported to the board of canvassers, a body clothed by the law of the state with judicial powers, and such board counted and recorded in the returns every legal ballot cast for you in Pitt County.

I expressly deny, upon information and belief, that any illegal ballot or ballots intended to deceive were prepared or used by any supporter of mine, or that any supporter of mine concealed or destroyed the registration book of Pactolus precinct. On the contrary, I aver, upon information, that the books were taken by supporters of yours with a view and intention of casting discredit upon the election and with the, hope that thereby the vote of the county of Pitt, wbich it was known was largely in my favor, could be drawn in question.

And, thirdly, further answering, I aver that I am not only entitled to the vote as canvassed by the board of State canvassers, a certified copy of which I will produce when thereto required, by which there are counted for me 12,339, and for you are counted 11,562, giving me a clear majority of 777 votes; but that in addition thereto I received and am entitled to bave counted for me a majority of 32 votes in Murfreesborough precinct, Hertford County, whereby my majority should be increased to 509.

That at said precinct a legal election was held and the votes duly counted, but by the failure of the officer deputized to bring up the returns to the board of county canVassers in due time, the said returns were not included in the vote of Hertford County. That I am entitled now to have the same counted for me.

« PreviousContinue »