836 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS [Mar. 17,

not concede, therefore, that these votes were upon this proof
rightly taken from Widdicombe, and given to Brooke. The
Majority Report speaks of Mr. Widdicombe foisting a Re-
publican ticket upon a voter, who supposed he was voting a
Democratic ticket. As the testimony with reference to this
vote is very much confused, this Report will only refer to the
page where it is to be found, (page 68, printed testimony,) and
the name of the party, Henry Spriggs, Sr., and for the pres-
ent will pass it by. It is further contended that the evidence
shows three cases where the parties were prevented from
voting for Mr. Brooke and voted for Mr. Widdicombe by
reason of intimidation, fear and threats of personal violence.
These are Wash. Johnson, James Shorter and Abram Coates.
The proot in the case as to Johnson is his own testimony, and
it will be passed over by a reference to the page where it is
found, and may be interesting as showing how easily one
may be intimidated, (page 54, printed testimony, Dep. No.
19.)

With regard to the other two, all the testimony, and the
only testimony to show they voted the Republican ticket un-
der fear and intimidation is to be found, (page 69, printed
testimony, answer to 7th question, J. W. Belt, witness.)—
This solitary answer to question seven is the only ground
upon which it is sought to deduct these two votes from Mr.
Widdicombe and count them for Brooke.

It seems to be a desperate case that requires to be sustained
upon testimony that would not be received in the lowest Court
in the land; hearsay of the most irresponsible kind, unknown
statements made on the night of the election, miles from the
place of voting, at a country store, parties say they could
not vote as they wanted, because they were threatened with
personal violence, and yet they cannot even name the persons
threatening them. Why were not these same men brought up
and made to speak for themselves, that they might show how,
when, and under what circumstances these threats were made?
The opposite party would then have had a chance to cross-
examine them, which is a right no party charged with viola-
ing the law should be deprived of.

These parties, unsworn, and not cross-examined, not even
testifying in person. Where is the least protection for the
party charged ?

Such testimony would descimate any vote, and ruin any
reputation. Is the presumption that they told the truth any
stronger than that they were trying to curry favor with wit-
ness, who was owner of the store, and a Democrat.

This Report, for the above reasons, does not agree that there
is any sufficient legal evidence to show or justify the deduc-
tion of these two votes from Widdicombe, and the giving of
them to Brooke.