f 2

you at said election, surrounded the polls, with arms and
weapons, in Election District No. 10, on the morning of the
election, and held the said pells all that day, and drove off
by force, violence, threats and intimidation a large number
of legal and registered votors, &c.

The charge that large numbers of armed me n surrounded
the polls in Election District No. 10, conspiring with the
Judges, and acting under the counsel of the sitting members,
threatening violence, with intent to intimidate persons from
voting, thereby preventing a large number of duly registered
voters from easting their ballots for the contestants, are un-
supported by any testimony. It is shown that in this moun-
tain region it is, and has been the custom of the people to
take their guns with them. It is also fully shown that these
armed men belonged to both parties; and it is further shown
by contestants' witnesses that there was no intimidation or
threats offered to any one, and that there was no quarreling
or interference with voters; and that the election was an un-
usually peaceable one. It is also shown that many came
armed fearing an assault by citizens from West Virginia and
others. As they were disappointed in this, not a gun was
fired or menacingly employed.

The next point, aad that on which the majority rely upon
as giving the contestants & right to seats in this Body is, that
numerous registered, and consequently qualified voters, were
rejected by the Judges of Election, amounting to fifty-one
votes in all, to this the undersigned object. First, that the
Constitution, Article first and section fourth, plainly defines
the qualification of voters, and the Registration Law, chap-
ter 174, sections six and fifteen, of the Laws of Maryland,
1865, plainly shows that the Registers of 1866 not only had
no right to examine into the acts of the Registers of 1865,
but positively forbids, under pains and penalties, their regis-
tering any man who the former Registers had entered in their
register as disqualifie.

We find, by examination of the record, that there were
twenty-three names recorded who had been entered disquali-
fied by the Registers of 1865, with witnesses to prove said
facts. The undersigned cannot comprehend how, after the
positive prohibitions of constitutional law, the majority can,
by any true legal process, count said votes; and if the above
reference to the Constitution and law is not sufficient to prove to
this Honorable Body that the Judges of Election have the power
to enquire into the fact whether a registered person, and spe-
cially one registered disqualified in 1865. We refer to Elec-
tion Law, Article 35, section 9th, of the Code of Public Gen-
eral Laws, which says, that every Judge of Election, before
he proceeds to take or receive any vote, shall take the follow-