1874.] OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATS. 83T

This Report therefore .considers, that under the 2d, 3d and
4th objections, when the Majority Report deducts these votes
from Widdicombe, and gives them to Brooke, they have not
sufficient legal evidence therefor.

The law referred to by the Majority Report, punishing can-
didates and other persons with fine and imprisonment, who
may practice force or violence, to influence unduly, or over-
awe, intercept or hinder any election, is unquestionably a
good and wholesome law, but furnishes no ground for deduct-
ing votes from either party in this case, until it has first been
shown that he at least received them.

Under the third objection, that minors were allowed to vote
the Majority Report contends that Henry Holland voted for
Widdicombe. The evidence does not so read. The only
witness who pretended to know of his voting, is J. W. Belt
and he says positively (page 69 printed testimony, answer to
3d question,) that he did not see his ticket.

This Report cannot therefore consider that it is proper to
deduct this vote from Mr. Widdicombe, in the absence of all
legal proof that he received it. Under the 4th objection, that
unpardoned convicts were permitted to vote, the Majority
Report states that three unpardoned convicts voted, and from
the fact that they were identified with the Republican party,
other associating circumstances they believed they voted for
Widdicombe, viz: Mack Johnson, George Locker, and N.
Beall. With this decision the Minority Report cannot agree.
It is proved by parties who read the ticket and saw it deposit-
ed, that G. Locker voted for Widdicombe. There is no
legal proof that N. Beall or Mack Johnson voted for Wid-
dicombe.

It is not plain that because a witness says these parties
were identified with the Republican party, that the conclu-
sion follows with the legal certainty which is only proper in
determining a case upon the evidence, that therefore they
voted for Widdicombe. It seems as if liberality, to say noth-
ing of law, would bid one hesitate before rushing to this wild
conclusion in a matter of this grave importance. This Report
does not concede, therefore, that there is any evidence to war-
rant the taking these two votes from Widdicombe in the ab-
sence of legal proof that he secured them. This Report does
not propose to express any view on the question as to the
right to vote after conviction.

It is a matter that will probably ere long come before the
Courts, and there it will be finally settled, and as it would
not vary the result under the view taken in this Report, it
will be passed. This Report agrees in the main with what is
said in the Majority Report upon the subject of non-resi-
dents.