Deposition of Charles M. Haynie (white), a witness on behalf of the contestant; being first duly sworn, deposed as follows:

Direct examination by Mr. PIERSON:

Q Where do you live?—A. I live in the Olive Branch precinct, in De Soto County, Mississippi.

Q. How long have you lived there ?-A. Something over 20 years.

Q. Have you been familiar with political canvasses and with elections held at the Olive Branch precinct during that time?-A. I have.

Q. I'll ask you now whether in 1882, and since that time, fair elections have been held or not, and give your reason for your answer?-A. Since 1882 the opposition of the Democratic party have been totally without representation at the polls. Each year since that time a very large per cent. of the Republican voters have found their names erased from the poll-book, and they've been marked, others moved, dead or gone, and the rule of the inspectors has invariably been, when a voter's name was so erased or so marked they declined letting him vote; hence a very large per cent. of the opposition to the Democratic party has been virtually disfranchised."

Q. You say that the opposition to the Democratic party has not been represented at the polls. What do you mean by that ?-A. I mean that they have neither been allowed an inspector or clerk, but an ignorant, illiterate colored man has been selected by the county board of inspectors to represent the Republican party, and at the last election I'm informed the man so selected voted the Democratic ticket-voted for Cleveland and Judge J. M. Morgan.

Q. Were the same conditions existing as to the manner of erasing voters' names from the poll-book and not allowing them to vote, in 1888-at the election of 1888, as you have described in your first answer?-A. I didn't see the poll-book at the last election, hence, of my own knowledge, can't say. I was present, though, when quite a number of voters, or rather, you may put that applications to vote, were refused for the reason that their names were not found on the poll-book.

Q. I'll ask you whether you knew the men who applied to vote, and whether you knew where they had voted heretofore?-A. Yes, sir; some of them I did.

Q. Where were they voters?-A. Olive Branch; men that had lived there for a number of years, and some of them men that had voted in my presence were refused to vote at this last election; just how many I couldn't say.

Q. Was there any organization of the Republican party in your precinct in the last canvass-A. There was.

Q. Was it a good or bad organization?-A. I regarded it a good organization. Q. Did they support the entire Republican ticket?-A. So far as I know they did. I didn't hear a single dissenting voice among Republicans.

Upon this proof the returns should be set aside and there should be added to Chalmers 100 and taken from Morgan 185, the vote returned for him. The count will then stand.

COCKRUM, LAKE CORMORANT, LEWISBURG, AND PLEASANT HILL.

At these four boxes no specific proof was taken. But at these, as at every other precinct in this county, the Republicans were denied the inspectors they asked for. In the case of Threet vs. Clarke, this committee held the law to be as follows:

The committee is of the opinion that where the course is systematically pursued, of appointing on the election boards to represent the minority or opposition party, persons not indorsed by that party, and as to whose loyalty to the party whose interests they are expected to guard there is a question, or of appointing persons who are unable to read and write, when there would be no difficulty in finding men well qualified in these respects, this ought of itself be considered evidence of conspiracy to defraud on the part of the election officers. This was clearly a violation of the law on the part of the board.

This law declares this to be evidence of a conspiracy to defraud, but it is said there must be some further evidence of fraud to set aside the returns. We have this much evidence from the history of the district. It is charged in the notice of contest, and not denied in the answer, that the Democratic vote at these boxes in the primary election in 1877 was only 371, while they are returned 538 for contestee. In addition we have the record in the case of Buchanan vs. Manning, which shows that Pleasant Hill box was rejected for fraud both by the majority and minority report in that case. (See Digest Election Cases, 1880-82, p. 296.)

In the case of McDuffie vs. Turpin it is said: "When the law provides that each of two political parties shall have representation on the election board of inspectors, it is a provision to prevent dishonest partisans from making false returns." And the supreme court of Mississippi said: "Any practice which may be thought purposely to have been resorted to for influencing the result" will set aside the returns. (Word vs. Sykes, 61 M., p. 667.)

The only question, then, is, was this practice purposely resorted to at these precincts for influencing the result?

If the same thing which was done this year has been resorted to year after year for many years, this is the best evidence that it was purposely done to affect the result of the election.

Austin Bell proves that the Republicans were denied the inspectors they asked for at this election. (Rec., p. 156.)

That this refusal has been continued for years is proved by the following testimony. C. M. Haynie says:

Cross-examination by Mr. BUCHANAN:

Q. You say that since 1882 the opposition has been without representation at the polls. Do you refer to the Olive Brauch precinct alone in that answer?-A. In that answer I referred to the Olive Branch precinct because the question was confined to that precinct.

Q Have not the Republicans always been allowed an inspector or judge of the election by the election commissioners?-A. They have not, but have invariably been refused the man that they requested to be appointed for each box, and some illiterate man appointed instead of the one they requested should be appointed.

Q. My question was, has not a Republican been appointed an inspector by the board? Have the board not complied with the law by appointing a Republican inspector?-A. I'm inclined to think not, because I've reliable information that the man who has served for several years voted for Cleveland and Morgan at the last election, hence I don't think he was a Republican.

Q. And because you were reliably informed that one inspector at the Olive Branch precinct at one election voted the Democratic ticket, or for the Democratic candidate for Congress, you conclude that the inspectors of election in De Soto County-I mean the commissioners of election for De Soto County-have systematically violated their duty and refused to appoint Republican inspectors, as the law requires that they shall do?-A. Oh, I didn't say anything of that kind. That question leads to a perversion of what I said.

Q. Well, I want to understand you.-A. State that question once more.

Q. The question has been read over to you; now what have you to say to it ?—A. It is well known to every man who is familiar with the political methods adopted by the Democratic party not only for the precinct of Olive Branch, but for every precinct in De Soto County, that it has been deemed best for the perpetuation of the Democratic party that no man of any intellect should be permitted to represent the Republican party at any box in the county.

Q. You say it is well known as you have stated; do you know it to be a fact ?—A. I do.

Q. State how you got your information on that subject ?—A. From personal observation.

Q. Then state from what facts you draw that personal observation.-A. Personal interviews with members of the county board of inspectors, and from personal interviews with prominent members of the Democratic party in the county, and from a personal examination of the books.

Q. State what members of the board of commissioners ever told you that the policy of the party was as you have stated; give the time and place of such interviews; also, state what prominent members of the Democratic party ever made similar statements to you, and give the time and place of such interviews.-A. That's a far-reaching question. I will go back of 1882 in answering that question. About 1879 I was a candidate for chancery clerk on the Greenback ticket in De Soto County, and waited upou the board-I don't remember who were the members of it; Day was one of them, though-and asked for representation at each box; they refused to do it. As for the special time, I couldn't give that; I saw him at his house; I saw him with the otherI saw him with the other members of the board at the court-house in Hornando. Again, in 1881, I was a candidate for the legislature upon the same ticket, and waited in person upon each of the members of the board; couldn't specify the days; they refused again. I was in Hernando, I believe in 1876, I'm not sure, and had a talk with Mr. Dodson, and insisted that Gen. Chalmers should have représentation at the boxes, and his reply was: "Oh, you have representation every time," or words to that effect, "but we'll select the men for you." Conversations that I've had with friends outside of officials as regards the appointments, either as to time or place, I don't think has anything to do with this case.

Q. So you base your conclusions that the board of commissioners have systematically violated their duty, as you have stated, upon the above interviews which you have, as stated, with members of that board, do you not ?—A. I do not wholly or entirely.

Q. Well, if you do not wholly or entirely base it upon that ground state upon what ground you do base it ?-A. I base it upon the ground that since 1882, so far as I have been able to learn, not a single man has been appointed that was asked for by the Republican executive committee of the county.

Q. Have you presented the names of Republicans, and asked their appointment, to the board yourself?-A. I have not.

Q. Then what you know of the matter of the action of the board is not of your own knowledge, but hearsay, is it not?-A. I have been in frequent consultations with the executive committee, and have assisted in selecting such men-the names of suitable men to represent the various boxes at the polling places in the county. Those names were presented by some one selected by the Republican executive committee to the county board, and I am personally aware of the fact that none of those names that were sent up were ever appointed-none of the persons appointed whose names were sent up. (Rec., pp. 547,548.)

It will be observed that the Mr. Dodson who said in 1882 "We will select the men for you" is still one of the commissioners of election of this county, and his name, T. A. Dodson, appears signed to the returns. (Rec., p. 741.)

This same T. A. Dodson was one of the commissioners in 1880, as the testimony shows, in the case of Buchanan v3. Manning, when inspectors were asked for by the Republicans and refused. (See House Miscellaneous, first session Forty seventh Congress, vol. 4, p. 25.)

In a State like Mississippi, where, as we have asserted before, the commissioners of election control the whole machinery of election in a county, the county should be treated as an entirety, and if conspiracy and fraud are shown in the action of the commissioners this should taint the elec. tion held at every box where they have denied fair representation to the other side. It should at least change the burden of proof and compel the party relying upon the returns to show something more than the mere returns themselves to sustain their validity. That the commissioners of election of De Soto County denied inspectors of their choice to the Republicans is clearly proved. That fraud was found at every box that could be examined is abundantly shown. That one of the commissioners of election destroyed the certified list of voters is admitted by himself. That counsel for contestant were prevented by intimidation from taking testimony at Hernando is also shown, and this should be considered in connection with the want of testimony as to these boxes. All these reasons taken together show sufficient grounds to throw out these boxes. This would take from Chalmers 312, from Morgan 540.

MARSHALL COUNTY.

The notice of contest says:

MARSHALL COUNTY.

I charge that you were very unpopular in the district, and especially so in Marshall Co., where you were charged with having betrayed Col. Manning in his contest with me in 1882, and that you did not receive, within 20 per cent., the Democratic vote of this county. And yet when Col. Manning received only 1,296 votes out of a total vote of 3,607, you pretended to have received 2,248 out of a total vote of 3,660. And at the East Holly Springs box, where Col. Manning lived and voted, his majority was only 37, while your pretended majority is 220. And at this box, where the two candidates for sheriff in 1887 could poll only 181 Democratic votes, you pretend to have received 350 votes. I charge that all manner of fraud was practiced at every box in this county except Early Grove, and there your friends refused to hold an election because I would have a majority there of 60 votes. I charge that in this county I have one thousand majority over you, while 885 majority was counted for you. And further to show the gross fraud of your pretended vote, I compare it with the vote for sheriff between McWilliams and Miller, two popular Democrats, who brought out the full Democratic vote of the county in 1887 in the primary election. Byhalia and Watson then voted together, but now are two boxes.

Evidences of fraud.-Brief of contestant says:

(1) Mr. A. J. Rylee, a witness for contestee, testified as follows:

Cross-inter. 4-"Is it or not a fact, Mr. Rylee, that you have upon more than one occasion stated that the means and methods adopted and carried into execution by the Democratic party of this county in the holding of elections was unfair, fraudulent and unjust as against the parties opposing them, whether that opposition was Greenbackers or Republicans?" Ans.-"I have, privately and publicly, so far as the Greenback party is concerned, or as to Republicans when acting in concert with Greenbackers."

In answer to cross-interrogatory 3 Mr. Rylee swears that in so far as his knowledge goes they (the Democrats) use all the means at their disposal for the success of their party. The witness voted for Morgan, the contestee, in the last election and has been prominent in Marshall County politics for the last ten years. (See testimony of A. J. Rylee, Rec., p. 870.)

(2) In this campaign the Democrats were apathetic and indifferent and the negroes were more alert and active and better organized than for years. See testimony of John S. Burton, record, page 573; see circular Democratic executive committee of Marshall County, record, page 673. Besides, Judge Morgan was unpopular in the county with the Democrats because he did not heartily support Colonel Manning in his canvass in 1882 against Chalmers. (See testimony of John S. Burton, Rec., pp. 573, 4, and exhibit B to his deposition, Rec., p. 574. See testimony of C. B. Howry, Rec., pp. 954, interrogatories 1 and 2.)

And while Morgan was unpopular with the Democrats, the Republicans, with a few exceptions, were hearty in their support of Chalmers. (See testimony of John S. Burton, Rec., p. 573 (testimony of Geo. M. Buchanan, Rec., pp. 607–610).

And yet Morgan professes to have received 2,248 votes out of a vote of 3,660 in the county, when Colonel Manning in 1882 could get but 1,296 votes out of a vote of 3,607 in the county, and at Colonel Manning's own box he, in 1882, received only 37 majority, and Morgan pretends to have received 257 majority. Morgan's certified vote is rendered still more ridiculous by the fact that in 1887 a primary election was held in the county between two very popular candidates to decide which should be the candidate of the Democratic party for sheriff. There was a very exciting canvass, and the full Democratic strength was voted. The two candidates only received 1645 votes in the county. Dr. Burton swears that it is impossible for Morgan to have received, in a fair election, more votes than the two candidates for sheriff did. This, of itself, shows the gross frauds in this county. (See testimony of John S. Burton, Rec., pp. 582, 583.)

The Republicans were apprehensive that these frauds would be committed, as they had been often before. They had never been allowed any election inspectors, and had only the United States supervisors to guard their rights, and if they watched the man who took the tickets from the box, when the count started, the clerks would make false tallies; if, on the other hand, he watched the clerks, the man taking tickets out of the box would change or misread the tickets. But the Republicans of this county did not intend to be thus cheated out of their rights. Chalmers had been nominated in Holly Spring, and the Republicans of Marshall had imbibed a large share of the enthusiasm which prevailed in the nominating convention. They determined to arrange a plan by which they could ascertain what proportion of the vote polled at the election was Republican. This plan is best explained by the witness who helped arrange it, Capt. George M. Buchanan. He says:

"A short time before the election our central committee agreed on this plan: That in order to ascertain as nearly as we could the votes cast by Republicans at the election, that we would have one or more intelligent men at each precinct to take charge of all the Republican tickets and distribute them to the Republicans; at the same time another man at each preciuct, to take down the list of the names of the voters as the tickets were given to them. Furthermore, we agreed and did furnish from our headquarters at Holly Springs a memorandum book for each precinct, or sufficient memorandum books for each precinct, to take down these names, with the instructions to parties distributing tickets not to do any electioneering; to go to some quiet place in view of the polls where they could write unmolested; keep an accurate account, and to give no man a ticket without he came for it and announced his inten. tion to vote it." (See testimony of George M. Buchanan, Rec., pp. 598-599.)

It will appear in the examination in detail of this county that this plan was carried out substantially at each place about which testimony was taken. It will also appear that there was no particular testimony as to several places, and the reason of this is also given in the testimony.

Contestant made arrangements to take his testimony as to Marshall County before Mayor Calhoun at Holly Springs, and gave notice to that effect; and but for the interference of contestee's counsel, as hereinafter explained, the whole vote of this county would have been thoroughly and clearly proved.

EAST HOLLY SPRINGS.

Evidence of fraud.-(1) The whole number of votes certified was 444, while the whole number of votes appearing on the certified list of voters was only 443. (See vote certified for East Holly Springs, Rec., p. 743; see clerk's certified list of voters for this box, Rec., pp. 1127, 1128, 1129, 1130.)

(2) The United States supervisor saw one of the Democratic inspectors switclring tickets, those taken from the voters being run up the inspector's sleeve and afterwards falling on the floor, while others were put in the ballot-box in the place of those dropped. (See testimony of J. J. Sigman, Rec., pp. 569-670.)

Proof of vote.-J. J. Sigman, the United States supervisor, proves that he knew personally 201 persons whose names appeared on the list of voters at this box, kept by him on the day of election, to be Republicans, and believes they voted a Republican ticket. Some persons whose names appeared on his list he did not know, and at the time of his examination could not tell whether they were white or colored. (See testimony of J. J. Sigman, Rec., pp. 569-570.)

Sigman also files his list of voters, numbering 447.

United States supervisor not allowed to see count in 1880, and 30 persous not allowed to vote. (See Dig. El. cases, 1880-1882, pp. 292–293.) As will be seen by reference to the primary election figures above referred to, page 7 of record, the Democratic strength at this box is only 181, and Dr. Burton swears that it was, in his opinion, impossible for Judge Morgan to get more votes at this box than did these two candidates for sheriff. (See testimony of John S. Burton, Rec., pp. 582, 583.) The fraud being proven, the number of votes being proven, and the Democratic strength being shown, we submit the vote as cast is proved to be as follows:

On this proof the return should be rejected. Counting for Chalmers his vote as proved, and none being proved for Morgan, the count would then stand thus: