OSHKOSH COURIER
January 2, 1856
The Official Canvass,
S.M. Booth’s Opinion
In the Free Democrat of the 24th is an account of a personal examination made by the editor, of the official returns of the late election for Governor, and the conclusions to which he had arrived in regard to the legality of the decision made by the board of State Canvassers. Mr. Booth’s report is quite lengthy, but we give below such extracts as we think most important.
"By the table we published December 12th, Bashford’s majority was 57 – a difference in the two counts of 522. This change was effected by throwing out the Mukwa canvass, by the failure of LaCrosse and St. Croix to send up their returns, and by supplementary and precinct returns. And as the supplementary returns decide the question of who is Governor, on the supposition that the action of the State Canvassers in regard to the Waupaca returns, is right, and as the Waupaca vote, if thrown out, admitting that the supplementary returns are all right, would elect Coles Bashford Governor, we shall examine these matters with some minuteness.
Supplementary Returns. – These were chiefly from Chippewa, Dunn, Manitowoc, Monroe, Oconto, Polk, Sheboygan and Waupaca. I do not name Door in this list, because but one return was made from that County, and that was canvassed by the Brown County Board of Canvassers, two days after the Brown County Canvass had been made, and was sent up as the official returns of Door County and not as an addition to votes in a County already once canvassed by the proper Board.
The aggregate additions to Barstow’s vote from these supplementary and independent returns, and from Counties, by the State Canvassers, were 321 (besides the 127 majority for Bashford, which was rejected by throwing out the Mukwa returns,) vis: 2 in Adams; 74 in Chippewa; 37 in Manitowoc; 11 in Monroe; 10 in Oconto, 94 in Polk; 17 in Sheboygan; and 76 in Waupaca."
Here follows a statement, in detail, of those supplementary returns, which we omit for want of room.
"The State Canvassers adopted the rule of receiving supplementary returns from County Clerks, and separate or independent returns from towns or precincts, which had not been sent to the County Board. And on examining the returns of previous elections, and particularly the election for Judge, last spring, we found that this has been the practice of the State Canvassers heretofore. A large portion of the returns from the new Counties has been by precinct returns to the State Canvassers, instead of to the County Canvassers, and votes so returned have been counted, and this, too, without respect to party.
* * *
We think it clear that the friends of Barstow hunted up or procured these supplemental and additional returns, and that but for such additions, even with the Waupaca vote, Barstow could not have been elected. His friends had an undoubted right to see that all the votes cast for him should be returned in season to be counted by the State Board, and whether the State Canvassers aided in this work, as is charged by the Journal and others, futher than to write to County Clerks to ask why the votes of certain towns were rejected, is a matter of inference, rather than proof. We think a messenger should have been dispatched for the La Crosse vote, on the 5th of December, as the law provided for doing, and that it would have been done, had the majority in that county been for Barstow. We see nothing illegal in efforts to get in all the votes and whether the friends of Bashford, had they taken as much pains to get in all the votes, as Barstow’s friends did to get in all of his, could have made as large additions to his vote, as the friends of Barstow did to his, we cannot judge. They will probably reply that they had not he advantage which the other side had, of knowing how many votes were required to make a safe majority. We may say that such proceedings are in bad taste, but matters of taste don’t decide elections in this country – if we accept the taste of liquor.
Waupaca – The Mukwa Canvass. – These returns state that "at the general election for the county of Waupaca, held the 6th day of November, A.D., 1855. The whole number of votes cast for Governor was six hundred and sixty-five [665] of which number Wm. A. Barstow received two hundred and sixty-nine and Coles Bashford three hundred and ninety-six," &c. The certificate in the usual form – the vote by towns not given – and signed regularly.
This vote the State Canvassers rejected. They say that had the towns comprised in this Mukwa canvass sent up separate returns, they should have canvassed them. But that there cannot be two sets of legal County officers, the Mellen Chamberlin, who made and certified to the Waupaca canvass, has the County seal and is the only Clerk known to the State Department, that there has been no notification received by the State Department of any change of the County Seal, as is averred was made by the Mukwa Board, and in confirmation of their position they show the census returns of John Fordice – the County Clerk who made the Mukwa canvass – as town Clerk of Weyauwega, to Mellen Chamberlin, County Clerk. And the Town Clerks of Weyauwega, Mukwa and Lind – three of the towns embraced in the Mukwa canvass – made School Report returns dated Nov. 10th, 1855, to Mellen Chamberlin, as Clerk of the County Board of Supervisors.
We do not see how, in this aspect of the case, the State Canvassers could have received the Mukwa Canvass. But we think they should have written – as they did in the Manitowoc case – and ascertained what towns these votes were from, and that they would have done so, had they wished to see the votes of these six towns represented in the State Canvass. We think, too, that the vote of 602 for Governor, in the town of Waupaca, was so clearly a fraud that it should have been investigated. Not that the Board were compelled to investigate this case; but when the vote is such that it bears on its face the proof of fraud, and when such a fraud, too, determines a gubernatorial election, it ought to be clearly scanned. We do not think the State Board acted illegally in this matter. We simply think they did not use the discretion vested in them to ferret out and correct this fraud.
We have now stated frankly and dispassionately, the facts, as they appear to us. And we shall now state our views of the whole matter. From the record, we do not think the State Canvassers can be convicted of fraud or intentional wrong, or that charges of malfeasance as a Board, can be made to lie against them, or that their decision can be reversed before any Court, without going outside of the official returns. If – as somebody reports that somebody said, that he saw "in the Clerk’s own hand writing" that the vote of Waupaca was 219 for Coles Bashford and 288 for Wm. A. Barstow – if this can be proved to be the true vote of Waupaca, or it can be proved that 300 or 400 more votes were returned than were cast and frauds cannot be proved on the other side, as we trust there cannot be, the decision of the State Can-vassers may be reversed. But it must be remembered that it is positive proof and not reports that are required by Courts, and that moral belief and legal certainty are two very different things. And when the door is once opened behind the County Canvassers, there is a pretty large field for political evolutions – as large as either party chooses to make it, within the State limits.
If Mr. Bashford and his advisers feel confident not that he has a legal majority of the votes cast for Governor – for of that we have no doubt – but that he can make this fact legally appear before our Supreme Court, we say "go ahead." But if there is any doubt about the proof of this fact – and we candidly think there is – we should hesitate long before undertaking the task. It will require time, and if the attempt fails, it were better to leave the decision as it is.
But as we have not had time nor opportunity to examine the proofs on which Mr. Bashford relies to successfully prosecute his claim, our opinion is not based upon a knowledge of all the facts. And we merely express the hope, that Mr. Bashford will take the advice of others than warm partisans, before proceeding formally to contest the office.