The West Virginia
Gubernatorial Election Contest
1888-1890

By James Henry Jacobs

From West Virginia History
Volume Seven, Number Three
April 1946

Part I
The Campaign

In West Virginia the citizens of 1888 witnessed a gubernatorial campaign of diverse elements. The rumblings of 1884 and 1887 within the Democracy could still be felt by the political seismograph. By playing upon these discrepancies and their own party principles, the Republicans naturally felt their unity.¹ The Union Laborites,² the Prohibitionists³ and the Colored Independents⁴ also put tickets in the field.

The Union Labor convention on May 3, was the first state convention to meet.⁵ S. H. Piersol, Wood County, editor of the Standard and chairman of the state executive committee, was nominated as a candidate for governor by Virgil A. Gates. Upon motion the nomination was made by acclamation, as was that of each potential state officer.⁶ In his appreciation speech, Piersol promised his opposition to "fusion" and stated that the older parties did not have "any principles to fight for" and that "the spoils . . . [were] all they . . . [had] to fight for." The group deemed it inexpedient to make any nominations for Supreme Court Judge, because the members declared the position was non-political. Other nominees were accepted by acclamation.⁷

In its report to the convening body, the committee on organization proposed that the party in West Virginia be made permanent. The report reaffirmed "the Cincinnati platform adopted February 2d [sic] . . . [to which it pledged] . . . its hearty support and entire endorsement." The state plank was made appealing by its inclusiveness, especially for laborers and other wage-earning classes. It stood for making operators pay miners for merchantable coal, for according the same rights to individual property owners as to corporations, for raising sufficient revenue to promote the state government, and for considering a state bureau of immigration which would exist "under a law with liberal provisions that shall secure the advertisement . . . [of the state's] inexhaustible resources, and to secure wealthy . . . thrifty, energetic [and] moral people to settle in our midst." The reform plank continued by favoring all laws which would be abreast with "those of the most populous and prosperous States." It favored the repeal of all "antiquated, moss- back laws" which hindered commercial development and general progress.⁸

The final resolves denounced the "bad faith and cunning" of the preceding legislature manifested in a failure to provide machinery for enforcing the two weeks' pay and child labor bills; they farther declared that the Miner act was a deliberate attempt to cripple organized labor.⁹ Immediately following adjournment of the convention, General J. B. Weaver, Greenback candidate for President in 1880, initiated the Laborite campaign in the Wood County courthouse yard.¹⁰

David D. Johnson

On July 31, Parkersburg became convention host to the well-intentioned Prohibition party. David D. Johnson called the ninety delegates to order, after invocation by "the Rev. Mr. Meyers, " pastor of the Moundsville Presbyterian Church.11 Johnson proclaimed the value of the third party movement and named the Rev. L. L. Stewart, of Moundsville, temporary chairman. The Woman's Christian Temperance Union's resolution for a third party, obviously of the Prohibition variety, had been passed by that organization's July 5 convention in Parkersburg by a vote of 43 to 40, largely through the influence and activity of Miss Frances E. Willard.12 This Temperance Union endorsement was presented by Miss Jane Johnson at the Prohibition convention before nominations took place. The combined pressure of these two temperance- minded groups made the proposed amendment prohibiting the sale and manufacture of intoxicating liquors the most important of three submitted to the people in November.13

Following the address by the "Hon. [General] George Christian" in which both major parties were tremendously scathed, routine business was completed. "The committee appointed to report the State ticket then appeared with . . . [a] list which was unanimously adopted." Thomas R. Carskadon, a one-time leading Republican of Hampshire County, and one who had been the youngest member of the State Constitutional Convention of 1862-63,¹⁴ became the gubernatorial candidate.¹⁵

From the early eighties there existed a Camden and an anti-Camden camp within the Democratic party. "All seemed to agree that Governor E. Willis Wilson was the leader of the irreconcilables and was perfecting schemes to supplant [Johnson N.] Camden,"¹⁶ West Virginia industrialist.

Although the Camden Democrats elected to the legislature in 1886 were not preeminently strong in numbers, it appeared that Camden would receive enough party support to be reelected to the Senate. The anti-Camdenites stubbornly opposed the Camdenite proposition, when the time for the election came. For several weeks, from January 25, 1887 to the end of the regular session, the Camdenites and the anti-Camden faction were deadlocked. Each balloting was close and nearly favorable for Camden; but, having no success and seeing disunity spread within the party, he abandoned his hopes for reelection. Daniel B. Lucas of Jefferson County, Camden's "bitterest and most unrelenting . . . political foe,"17 was appointed by Governor Wilson after the undecided legislature adjourned sine die. This state of affairs was probably a blow to Camden. The special legislative session, meeting in May, rebuked the appointment of Lucas and chose Charles J. Faulkner, Jr., of Martinsburg, a man acceptable to Camden and the opposition.18

Daniel B. Lucas

Archibald W. Campbell

Later, Camden's support of Grover Cleveland's tariff policy tended to coalesce the opposition with his henchmen and to strengthen his own political position. Although Democratic newspapers tagged him a formidable candidate for governor in 1888,19 Camden would not acknowledge these contentions. Harry G. Davis, West Virginia industrialist and railroad magnate, whom Camden favored for the position, refused to consider the matter.20 The ex-Senator's next choice fell upon Judge Aretus Brooks Fleming of Marion County, an associate in the Upper Monongahela coal field.21 Camden promoted the boom for him which gradually gained momentum. Certainly Fleming possessed political "availability"; his candidacy was quite acceptable to party factions. He had been a judge for approximately ten years; he was well known, and he had not unduly aroused any Democratic faction.22 Rumors of "Fleming for Governor" spread meanwhile. Even the Republicans became aware of them. A proprietor of the Republican Wheeling Intelligencer, Archibald W. Campbell, when interviewed in Washington, D. C., gave "the impression that . . . Fleming . . . [would] be the Democratic candidate."23

As early as March 8, a letter from Benjamin H. Oxley of Lincoln County, secretary of the state executive committee, indicates a previous discussion favoring the nomination of Fleming. Oxley tried to show that Fleming had a following.²⁴ In late June, Fleming was again told by Oxley that he should be nominated and that his candidacy was vital for the welfare of the party.²⁵ Fleming replied that he could give no definite answer, pending the outcome of an undetermined business enterprise, the success of which would definitely incapacitate him for running.²⁶

From existing evidence it is known that Fleming still preferred to avoid the nomination as late as June 13, when he wrote Camden, "From the start I have been . . . averse to being a candidate . . . I [had] supposed that 'the boom' would spend itself and that . . . [my] valued friends would . . . go to some other [possible nominee]." He amicably continued, "Start a boom for someone else."27 Yet, earlier in the same month, Fleming had written Camden that he was most thankful for the kindness shown him, but, "I regret to tell you that I have concluded not to be a candidate . . . I am harassed with debt and must bend my energies to making some money or else sell property which I desire to keep. I know the Canvass will be Expensive."28 In the same letter he closed by reluctantly consenting to the use of his name by the party and though he did not desire the position he agreed to let the question rest with the discretion of the party.29 Certainly Camden would make the most of this allowance.

Johnson N. Camden

On June 28, Col. Benjamin W. Byrne, West Virginia politician and "walking encyclopaedia,"³⁰ wrote from Charleston to Fleming, Judge James Morrow, Jr., and Attorney Alpheus F. Haymond, all of Fairmont. He stated that either one "would be acceptable to a large portion of our party in this part of the state," and he proposed that an agreement between the joint addressees should decide the one who would formally declare himself a candidate.³¹

Fleming was designated by his two colleagues to reply for them and himself. He related, in substance, that Haymond had not anticipated the nomination nor did he believe it justifiable to the voters for an agreement to be made of the type suggested. He continued, that Morrow would not run but would accept the nomination "if tendered him." Fleming's own attitude changed signally from his earlier attitudes. He wisely claimed, "While I have not said I was not a candidate, . . . if nominated . . . I would feel it my duty to accept . . . ."³² Fleming's June letter to Camden, dated the 13th, and his answer to Byrne indicated an "on the fence" attitude with leanings favorable toward a nomination.

As the convention day approached, a slight smirch of dissension which caused Fleming to lose a little support dwindled to a mere shell. This dissension arose when Morrow heatedly declared that he had been excluded from the nomination-to-be in Fleming's answer to Col. Byrne's letter of June 28. The existence of ill feeling between Fleming and Morrow is indicated in their correspondence. Morrow argued that a guarantee had been given by Fleming against having the latter's name used for the gubernatorial nomination. Fleming staunchly denied Morrow's charges and called Morrow's attention to the joint answer sent to Byrne which both Haymond and Morrow read before it was posted.³³ Considering the correspondence between the two citizens "at odds," it would seem that Fleming's actions were confirmed as proper. His "boom" grew and assurances of support from various quarters were showered upon him directly and indirectly.³⁴

The pre-convention campaign, "was . . . prepared to make sure that the insurgent group claimed none of the nominations and exerted no appreciable influence on the work of the convention."³⁵ This state of affairs existed "in spite of all that . . . [was] done to harmonize . . . [the party]. Camden's friends . . . aggressive and on the war path" emphasized the expectation that "Judge Fleming [would] be nominated . . . on the first ballot."³⁶

Florentine Hotel

On August 15, the day before the convention assembled, several hundred visitors, including delegates, newspapermen, and professional politicians, began to arrive in Huntington to finish plans and promote further machinations. No doubt, private caucuses met to forward political objectives. Fleming went to his quarters in the Florentine Hotel.37 His boom was being engineered by Camden's friends.38

Morrow apparently had a small delegation.39 Both he and Haymond were strong in the Eastern Panhandle.40 Despite his disagreement with Fleming, Morrow did not wish to be a candidate, and "only at the very urgent solicitation of many friends" did he telegraph from Fairmont late in the evening that his name could be presented to the convention.41 Probably a boom launched for him as early as was the one for Fleming would have given him a much larger delegation. Hiram A. Howard had a strong delegation42 and ex-Congressman "Phil" (Charles Philip) Snyder and others were also boomed for the gubernatorial nomination.43 In the Huntington skating-rink, amidst din, color, and excitement, the meeting was called to order early the next morning by Thomas S. Riley, chairman of the state executive committee.44 He then introduced Charles J. Faulkner, Jr., West Virginia's junior Senator, as temporary chairman. After preliminary business and adjournment, the body reconvened at two o'clock. The only discussion of note which was highlighted by an animated debate between Eustace Gibson of Cabell County and Cornelius C. Watts from Kanawha County, of the committee on credentials, occurred over the admission of proxy delegates. Convention Chairman Faulkner "held that proxies were not to be admitted unless the county convention authorized the delegates to name a proxy. Under this ruling Daniel B. Lucas and Eustace Gibson were refused a vote and John J. Davis of Harrison County, was admitted."45 Ironically, Lucas, a non-Camdenite, had hoped to second Fleming's proposed nomination.46

Eustace Gibson Cornelius C. Watts John J. Davis

Then senior Senator John E. Kenna of Kanawha County, a member of the committee on resolutions, proceeded to read the committee's report. It endorsed Cleveland and Thurman and lauded the former's presidential record. The platform "approved . . . Cleveland's message, and the Mill's bill [as well as] the State Administration, . . . it denied that the Democratic party was for free trade, and it declared for the St. Louis platform . . . ."⁴⁷ Unrestrained cheers of approval burst forth at the conclusion of the report.

Charles E. Hogg

William A. MacCorkle, from Kanawha County, nominated Fleming for Governor and his motion was soon after confirmed by the Upshur County delegation. Henry S. Walker, West Virginia's Secretary of State, followed by nominating Judge Morrow, whom he had championed in county conventions.48 H. Clay Ragland of Logan County nominated his fellow-countain, John B. Floyd. Ragland pointed out Floyd's fitness and worthiness for the position. Charles E. Hogg of Mason County, "made an eloquent speech in placing Hiram A. Howard's name before the Convention."49

After the nominations were seconded, balloting began; and when "it was clear to all that . . . the next . . . candidate" was going to be Fleming, the tide began to change. Logan County withdrew Floyd; Kanawha, in the person of Henry S. Walker, withdrew Morrow; and a delegate from Barbour County moved that the nomination of Fleming be made unanimous. The motion was enthusiastically carried, although Howard's name was strongly supported.50

John B. Floyd

Before the convention adjourned, routine business was handled. In a message of gratitude Fleming accepted the nomination which the delegates had bestowed, and he lauded "the Civil War daughter" and promised, if elected, "every means in . . . [his] power to foster every proper enterprise for the development of . . . [the state's] great [natural] wealth."⁵¹

While he was in Parkersburg as a guest of Camden, Fleming made known that he would refrain from political speeches until he quit the bench.⁵² Governor Wilson accepted his resignation on August 25, effective September 1, and appointed Alpheus Haymond to fill Fleming's seat.⁵³

Blackburn B. Dovener John W. Mason Isaac Duval

Many persons and journals were confident of success for the party, and in this train of thought several persons wrote Fleming.54 In a congratulatory note John J. Brown of Morgantown said, ". . . I feel that I shall lose no sleep now as to the result in West Virginia on November next."55 Others added ambition to their confidence. They "confidentially" suggested themselves for the office of secretary of state.56 One person sought the position of state librarian.57 Fleming demonstrated his precaution when he wrote, "we must not be too confident of success."58 Among West Virginia Republicans General Nathan Goff of Clarksburg was a recognized leader and an idol of his party.59 "The feeling . . . [persisted] . . . that [he] ought to take the nomination" for governor, though some persons believed he would prefer to be United States Senator.60 The Goff movement had two wings: one which boosted "the general" for the Senate and the other for the governorship. "Goff . . . tried to stop . . . the movement,"61 but it persistently advanced. Fleming predicted Goff's nomination.62 Certain circles were willing to adjure their allegiance from Goff to James L. McLean of Putnam County. Probably realizing the odds against him in competition with Goff's name at the convention and also the value of party unity in the year of a possible Republican victory, McLean instructed that his name must not be used in the presence of the General's. McLean handicapped his backers. A. W. Bell and Captain Blackburn B. Dovener, both of Ohio County, General Isaac H. Duval of Brooke County, James Menager of Mason, John W. Mason of Taylor, and W. H. H. Flick of Berkeley all had followers. Toward mid-August the active candidates in the latter group were considered to be Duval, McLean, and Menager.63

In accordance with the Republican state executive committee's published notices64 the necessary delegates made their appearance in the city of Charleston for the convention on August 22. John A. Hutchinson of Parkersburg "gaveled" the meeting to order and made the preliminary speech. Charles B. Hart, Wheeling journalist, of the committee on resolutions, then made his report. The (Weekly) State Journal labeled it "an emphatic labor and tariff document."65 It approved the Chicago platform of the national party, demanded "protection not only for manufactures but for raw materials and for all farm-products, a tax of $200 or more on immigrants for the protection of American labor, and oppose [d] the importation of contract or pauper labor."66

Charles B. Hart

As a proselytizing gesture the Republican platform made a direct appeal for the support of the Union Labor party as well as other labor groups and men interested in labor problems. The phrasing of the resolve damning "the passage of the miners' bill by the Democratic legislature of 1887, . . . [as] a direct blow at organized labor"⁶⁷ was identical with that found in the platform of the Union Labor party.

That afternoon at Charleston, Menager named Goff for state executive leader. "A motion to make . . . [the nomination] by acclamation carried."⁶⁸ The General "was forced . . . to run."⁶⁹ In a lengthy acceptance speech, he vowed that he had not sought the honor.⁷⁰ He made an especial oratorical effort to chide the Democrats and their Huntington platform.⁷¹ Here the early campaign skirmishes between the major parties opened.

One noted journal remarked that Goff's nomination for Governor rather than for Senator was "only a question of policy."⁷² This contention would indicate that the Republicans anticipated an easy victory in state politics. No doubt they expected little competition from Fleming. He had attended to judicial duties for a decade and had meantime made few public utterances of note. In contrast, Goff had been serving the national government with some distinction, and his position presented opportunities for public speaking. He had held the cabinet post of Secretary of the Navy under President Hayes, and he was in 1888 a West Virginia Representative in Washington. Goff's partisan colleagues fully recognized the timeliness of sponsoring him. He was a magnetic and strong leader.

The weeks before election Tuesday, November 6, were filled with rabid campaigning. Even the Sabbath was not free from it. At practically every political gathering bunting was used, flags were waved, and slogans were cast. Politicians followed the plans laid by state executive committees for touring the state. County committees cooperated with the state committee's plans wherever possible, while at the same time, in their own spheres, they executed their smaller but perhaps more important plans. These and local benevolent organizations and newspapers hounded the executive candidates for funds to carry on their work.⁷³ Partisan groups held flag raisings and barbecues where speakers great and small were applauded. Frequently, these organizations virtually begged to have their chief candidate present.⁷⁴ Processions headed by flags, banners, and the town's brass band were of common occurrence. Those held after dark were marked from beginning to end by torchlights. Various devices were concocted to insure and ensnare votes. One of the more common was the publication of stories and affidavits charging the opposite force with fraud, deception, vote bribing; the colonization of non-citizen Negroes for the purpose of voting, and with using other unethical means to win the election.⁷⁵ Newspapers were filled with yellow journalism. It was easy to see with which party the different papers sympathized. Many reports and editorials were unnatural, scathing, and sordid documents of a declamatory type.⁷⁶

In this campaign nationally known speakers were procured to tour the state. Among those sponsored by the Republicans were Governor James A. Beaver of Pennsylvania and General Stewart L. Woodford of New York.⁷⁷ Colonel L. Victor Baughman, comptroller of Maryland, Colonel John R. Fellows of New York, ex-Senator Joseph McDonald of Indiana, and ex-Congressman John Ellis of Louisiana were brought to the hill country by the Democrats.⁷⁸ The Democrats also had G. P. Sherberty, "the distinguished New York . . . orator," speak in German to the population of that tongue in Wheeling.⁷⁹ Charleston, Huntington, Parkersburg, Weston, Wheeling and other strategic towns were never forgotten by political henchmen. Remote hamlets received their share of the political onslaught. These were the days when men took their politics seriously.

Henry S. Walker

At the end of August, when Fleming resigned his judgeship, he began to make himself ready for the audience he was to meet in his state tour.80 Goff, following the Republican state committee's itinerary, made his opening speech at Hinton on September 4.81 Coincidently, the Democratic representative, Governor Wilson, and Secretary of State Henry S. Walker were scheduled to speak at the same place that day. In Hinton, Walker sent Goff an invitation to join him in a public discussion of the tariff issue. The General declared that he "would be pleased to respect any arrangement made by" the committee with the Democratic committee. The Republican body replied against having a discussion that day because of the time involved but agreed to a meeting of the candidates in the near future.82 Democratic journals pictured Goff as lacking of courage to accept the challenge.

On September 12, Walker was scheduled to address an audience in the Huntington Opera House. The Young Men's Democratic Club tried to arrange a joint discussion for him with Goff, who was to be in the city; but the Republican committee rejected the proposal.⁸³

At about this time, however, the tables were turned. On September 6, two days after Hinton, W. J. W. Cowden of Wheeling, chairman of the Republican executive committee, wrote Fleming and invited him to participate in a series of ten joint discussions for which Fleming's representative was to choose five places. Fleming cautiously responded that the Democratic state executive committee had made appointments for him, as far in advance as October 1, "to appear in the interior of the State . . . ." He referred Cowden's letter to the Democratic committee. Cowden also wrote T. S. Riley to renew his offer for joint discussions. Riley's reply mentioned Fleming's appointments in the interior. He also wrote that it was unfair to have Fleming discuss such matters as the tariff, because he had attended duties on the circuit bench for ten years while Goff had been continually exposed to the teachings of the first-hand dealings with the issues. Because Representative William L. Wilson, like Goff, had spent six years in Congress and understood the tariff question, Riley suggested his name for the discussion. His proposal was acceped by the Republican committee on September 13.84

W. J. W. Cowden

Charles J. Faulkner, Jr.

The Wheeling Intelligencer wrote that Fleming's position amounted to "a public confession of his unfitness . . . to fill the office of Governor."85 Republican circulars containing the Riley-Cowden correspondence were distributed. The Republicans were now in the fore. Some Democrats felt that Riley had underestimated Fleming's ability,86 but for reasons akin to those of Riley, Faulkner believed that consenting to any joint discussion would have been an injustice.87 The Democrats won their objective by equally matching Goff, despite criticism. A few days later Riley encouraged Fleming by telling him that he probably could have met Goff successfully, judging from the good speeches he had been making while on tour.88

After touring the "back country" Fleming was amazed to learn of the doubts, even of some of the members of his own party, which questioned his abilities to understand the tariff issue. He felt capable of handling a discussion⁸⁹ of the issue and grasped the first opportunity to meet Goff. The paths of the two candidates met on October 1, at Beverly, where Fleming challenged Goff to a joint discussion. Governor Wilson was advertised to speak that evening and therefore would not relinquish his time for a joint debate. It was in the afternoon that Fleming vindicated his position with the Democratic voters.⁹⁰ Many congratulated him,⁹¹ as no doubt others felicitated Goff.

The first of the four celebrated Wilson-Goff debates opened on October 13, in Martinsburg's Opera House. A debate followed at Wheeling and, according to some authorities, another at Montgomery. The closing one took place in Parkersburg on October 31. Along the same lines each discussion considered the tariff issue with its ramifications. Of the four, the Wheeling discussion, in the Alahambra roller-rink, was unusual. Many Republicans attentively listened to Goff's exposition of the "high tariff doctrine" as labor's protection. When Wilson rose he was jeered and derided by the "Goff claquers," as the Wheeling Register termed the Republicans.⁹² His efforts to be heard evoked perspiration and mental heat. He actually removed his cuffs and collar, but he maintained his poise.⁹³ In these four discussions, as in most reports of the partisan press, the newspapers favoring Goff classed him as a superior statesman, while Wilson received continued support from Democratic papers.

The number of parties taking part in the autumnal campaign was enlarged by a racial group. In middle September the "State Independent colored conference met in . . . [Charleston] and went into session." The Colored Independent party was formed and W. H. Davis, Negro, was nominated for Governor. The Platform opposed the Republican party, because "it refused to give the colored man the recognition to which he is entitled."⁹⁴ It denounced discriminating branches of study in public schools between white and Negro pupils and opposed monopolies, corporations, and trusts. It despised "taking the revenue off whiskey and tobacco, and . . . [asked] that all necessaries be placed upon a free list and that the tariff be reduced . . .⁹⁵ The last two objectives resembled much in the Democratic platform. The newest party was destined to be an unheard voice.

Fairmont witnessed a torchlight procession of 5000 in honor of Fleming and Henry S. Walker, who were present. Marching banners declared labor aligned with Fleming.⁹⁶ Many in the area were employed by his mining interests, and there cannot, therefore, be a definite claim that labor supported solely Fleming.⁹⁷ Goff had followers, also.

During the campaign the Union Laborites showed signs of dwindling. Their campaign was practically nil, and the election results show their relative small importance to the major parties. Even their nominee for state auditor, J. H. Burtt, deserted "the cause" by resigning his position on September 13, to "support the Republican nominees on the issue of the campaign."⁹⁸ Other members supported the Democrats.⁹⁹ Less was heard from the Prohibitionists and less were the votes favorable to them.¹⁰⁰ The Colored Independents were entombed by their unimportance, long before the election.

As the election drew near charges of graft filled the air. Fear existed that hired labor and independent Negro voters would sell their franchise.¹⁰¹ Election day came and went, but the final returns were not tabulated for many weeks. Early November marked the beginning of a prolonged struggle for the state executive office.

RISING APPREHENSIONS

No one slightly concerned with public occurrences could have escaped hearing the election fraud rumors which, like a pestilence, swept through the state. "Whiskey," "bribery," "non-residence," "boodle," "bought-votes," and "minors votes" were among the. many terms used in spreading these rumors."¹⁰²

Election returns were satisfactorily recorded for a great many offices but there was a number of confused returns. As a result, congressional and legislative seats were questioned.¹⁰³ Returns were slow in being totaled and in many cases weeks passed before tabulations were completed. Votes for the governorship elicited the most interest, due to the closeness in the totals reported for Goff and Fleming in many precincts."¹⁰⁴

Posted party men over the state reported the Republican and Democratic progress to their respective party and candidates. Often a candidate received letters and telegrams, and possibly visitors, keeping him posted and telling him of his successes or failures in certain areas.¹⁰⁵ Some were congratulatory,¹⁰⁶ but many tended to confirm the appalling rumor that votes were obtained through foul means for an opponent.¹⁰⁷ From existing evidence it might be believed that the Democrats were more severe in their charges than were the Republicans.¹⁰⁸ Nonetheless the Republicans did not keep a stoic silence.¹⁰⁹ Throughout the heated campaign there was talk that men were being unduly influenced, usually through money, to change their political views. Whenever a fraud was bared, with a kind of substantiating proof, it was reported along with the returns.¹¹⁰

From 1817, when the first probable settlement in what is now West Virginia was established - 'Potomoke,' in Jefferson County ¹¹¹ - to 1880 the state had not been burdened by effects of industrialization; but the eighties brought exploitation of natural resources and increased population.¹¹² In 1895, the Superintendent of the United States Census announced that during the decade preceding 1890 the distinguishable frontier line had disappeared.¹¹³ Two years before, this idea had been more thoroughly expounded by Frederick Jackson Turner of the University of Wisconsin.¹¹⁴ Because of the frontier's closing and the nation's expanding industry, the population tended to remain on its native soil instead of moving westward; population shifts took place within the settled areas, especially in the East. Figures prove, consequently, that West Virginia was no exception to a population increase.¹¹⁵

In the order of their importance the four counties gaining most in white population were (1) Kanawha, (2) Cabell, (3) Fayette, and (4) Mercer.¹¹⁶ Likewise, the four counties showing the greatest Negro increase were (1) Fayette, (2) Mercer, (3) McDowell, and (4) Kanawha.¹¹⁷ From 592,537 white persons in 1880 the population figures changed to 732,077 in 1890, an increase of 137,540.¹¹⁸ During the same decade the Negro population rose from 25,886 to 32,690, a total of 6,804.¹¹⁹ The whole increase, that is, white and Negro, was 144,344,¹²⁰ or roughly about 23 per cent.¹²¹ All males 21 years of age or over, that is, in the franchise years, raised the 1880 figures of 139,161 to 181,400 in 1890, or by 42,239.¹²²

Many business men considered West Virginia a good business risk. The amount of capital involved in manufacturing in 1870 had been $11,084,520, while from $13,883,390 in 1880 the latter amount more than doubled to $28,118,030 in 1890.123 Industry was making strides. From the election of John J. Jacob in 1870, to the choice of E. Willis Wilson in 1884, no Republican headed the state.124 In 1880 the Democratic party reached "the peak of its power."125 Later it asserted itself but with much effort. In 1884, the Democratic victory kept only about a third of its 1880 plurality.126 The campaign was hard fought and "the Republican party was gradually gaining . . . strength . . . ."127

John J. Jacob

Corresponding increases in population and industry, with the Republican growth before 1888, naturally tended to fill many Democrats with apprehension as to the gubernatorial results. The reports of illegal voting warned the two major parties of the insecurity of their candidates' positions. Returns were closely scrutinized. Democrats sometimes feared they would not command a plurality for governor, when all returns were tabulated.¹²⁸

When reports continued to pour into Democratic state headquarters and Fleming's hands, that wrongdoing was rampant throughout the state, during the election and counting of votes, the demands for recounts were hurled from politicians and oftentimes from the people.¹²⁹ Non-resident Negro voters, colonized voters, repeaters, and other charges were brands Democrats freely used in describing many voting precincts, especially in Mercer, McDowell, Fayette, Tucker, Wyoming, Brooke, and Kanawha Counties and others along the state's borders.¹³⁰ Republican newspapers were swift to lift the gauntlet in bickering defense. Many Democrats believed Fleming would be elected,¹³¹ but some few conceded a possible defeat for him as they watched the published returns.¹³²

Republicans guarded their interests.¹³³ One friend of Fleming's intimated that the Republicans "had every district ... [counted] twice during the Canvass [sic], "this as soon as the election polls closed.¹³⁴ When the county commissioners met, as provided by law,¹³⁵ five days after the election, recounts were demanded by several candidates.¹³⁶ Fleming's henchmen watched his interest in doubtful counties, including Ohio and Wetzel.¹³⁷

Despite most Democrats' confidence of Fleming's success, though not all county returns were tabulated, William E. Chilton and William A. MacCorkle, prominent party men, were pessimistic. They initiated the fight in Kanawha County by demanding a recount for Fleming without his knowledge,¹³⁸ though he soon sought recounts there and elsewhere.¹³⁹ Here, "the question of fraud in the election and the miscount of the ballots by the commissioners" were considered and guarded against by the Democrats. Fleming, it later developed, was beaten on the face of the returns, though MacCorkle declared, "our action in Kanawha County saved his election as far as the votes . . . [there] were concerned."¹⁴⁰ The report was that "Republican counties recounts . . . [were] demanded by [Republican candidates] . . . in order to keep the contest open . . . ."¹⁴¹ All of the recounts took many days before final returns from; each could be forwarded to the Secretary of State.¹⁴²

In the meantime Matt Quay, national Republican chairman, was accused by the Wheeling Register of having arranged the misconducted election.¹⁴³ The Norfolk and Western Railroad had recently been extended into the southern counties, and collieries had been newly organized in Mercer and McDowell Counties. Rails had carried many Negro workers from Virginia and the South into the coal fields for work. Republicans were said to have bought immigrant and non-resident Negro votes, to have colonized Negroes for election day, and to have transported Virginia Negroes from McDowell County to repeat their illegal voting in Bramwell and other Mercer County precincts.¹⁴⁴ When W. J. W. Cowden, state Republican chairman, conferred with Quay in Beaver, Pennsylvania, in late November and later with him and Goff in New York and elsewhere, Democrats felt certain that Quay was partially responsible for affairs in "the mountain state."¹⁴⁵

Cowden noted a failure of the Democracy to recognize the growth of the state's foreign immigration, its changing industrial character in Tucker, McDowell, and Mercer Counties and that "Democrats bribed voters to vote their ticket; to stay away from the polls; and they voted citizens of other States .. ., minors . .., paupers and imbeciles in spite of challenge or protest [at the polls]."¹⁴⁶ Both parties' organs hurled verbal bricks. They were always heated to scorch the opponent, Democrat or Republican.

The General said he would, if necessary, contest his election "before all suitable tribunals."¹⁴⁷ Fleming, "as the representative of . . . [the] party," and the people who supported him, replied that he would do likewise.¹⁴⁸ The contest die was cast.

A. B. Fleming

At a meeting of the Democratic executive committee called in Charleston 149 for November 30, Riley, state party chairman, issued an address on the matter of fraudulent voting. Printer's devils of kindred mind, spread it from county to county. In nature it was a recapitulation of the party's views on crooked voting, and it dwelt upon the election crimes said to have been perpetrated by Republicans. Democratic righteousness was espoused. A broadside of the address, dated at the Wheeling party headquarters, was circulated to individuals, clubs and interested organizations. It was accompanied by subscription blanks to finance the contest and asked each recipient to "send . . . names of . . . illegal voters, . . . where they voted and why they had no right to vote." In his speech Riley referred to the committee's resolution requesting Fleming "to take immediate action for an election contest should the recounts now in progress substantiate the Republican claim that his opponent has a meagre majority on the face of the returns."150 Surely the party was building a united front for the contest.151

In copious amounts contest demands were cast at Fleming's feet from many directions. Riley wanted "an investigation to determine who was honestly elected."¹⁵² Fleming, himself, was eager to vindicate his name and his party,¹⁵³ though in later years he admitted his dislike for having had to submit to the wishes of politicians.¹⁵⁴ He acted according to the stage set for him, however, when he said:

I feel . . . that the people . . . demand . . . this contest .... From the bottom of my heart I did not seek the gubernatorial nomination; but being a candidate I believe it . . . my duty to my State and to my party to see that the result of the election is honestly obtained. I have entered upon this contest from these motives alone, and at the request of the State Executive Committee . . .¹⁵⁵

J. W. St. Clair, one of several attorneys assigned by the Democratic party to Fleming's interests,¹⁵⁶ observed, with MacCorkle, the recount in Charleston of every Kanawha precinct.¹⁵⁷ John D. Alderson's recount for the Third Congressional District was also watched.¹⁵⁸ Republicans said Democratic efforts were to count out Goff in Kanawha, Wetzel, Mercer, and McDowell Counties.¹⁵⁹ Democrats referred to a Republican county court, clerk, and county attorney in Kanawha, an intimation that the election commissioners were controlled."" Fleming's counsel spent several days, at one period, persuading the commissioners to resume the recount which was hindered by the absence of one or two commissioners.¹⁶¹ St. Clair threatened to apply to the Supreme Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus, if action were further delayed.¹⁶² Counting continued.

A few days later, November 28, St. Clair, leading the counsel, petitioned the Supreme Court (Fleming v. Commissioners, November 28, 1888) to enjoin the county court commissioners of Kanawha County from recounting Lewiston precinct on the ground that two of the three election officials at Lewiston had not been properly sworn to their duties, as provided by law.¹⁶³ Petition showed the usual jurat to be absent from the election oath. In the precinct count, ninety votes were counted for Goff and seventy-nine for Fleming. Invalidating both counts would place Fleming eleven votes nearer Goff. St. Clair sought to seize this opportunity for his client on a technicality. During the recount the commissioners decided to count the Lewiston precinct votes despite protest. The petition declared the commissioners' action "a plain and palpable violation of the statute of the State, and a gross usurpation of power . . . ."¹⁶⁴

Joined by the petitioner, the commissioners demurred. The demurrant insisted "that prohibition will in no case lie to interfere with . . . commissioners . . . assembled in special session under the statute to ascertain the result of an election . . . ."¹⁶⁵

Okey Johnson, president of the court, denying the writ to the petitioner, held that a superior court can and would, under specified conditions, issue a prohibition writ to a quasi judicial tribunal, but that the county court commissioners acted within their jurisdiction in deciding to recount Lewiston precinct. The state Code provided that commissioners' oaths must appear on the poll books of each precinct before voting began.¹⁶⁶

The court ruled that, though in the case of Lewiston the usual jurat was wanting,¹⁶⁷ the commissioners did not exceed their jurisdiction ¹⁶⁸ because they had the right,¹⁶⁹ as a judicial duty,¹⁷⁰ to decide the question upon evidence ¹⁷¹ "whether the oath was in fact taken before the precinct-commissioners . . . entered upon the discharge of . . . [their] duties . . ."¹⁷² "If the evidence . . . [were] insufficient, that would certainly be no ground upon which to base an application for a writ of prohibition."¹⁷³ Reasoning against the petitioned writ the court significantly said, "it is well settled that mere errors and irregularities, where the proceeding is within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, are not subject to prohibition."¹⁷⁴

Kanawha County returns were not recounted only for Fleming's benefit but also for the benefit of and upon the insistence of John D. Alderson. Alderson had been a candidate against the Republican nominee, James H. McGinnis, for the state's third Congressional seat. It would seem that Democrats had hoped to prevent a publication of the total election results by the legislature, both houses of which body were, in January, 1889, to meet jointly to declare the gubernatorial winner. This aim would succeed if a prolonged recount in Kanawha County could be held until the legislature had met and declared the other state officers. Was it possible that the plan might cause the legislature to investigate the Kanawha election and consequently throw out the whole county vote for both Fleming and Goff? If so, the other counties would elect Fleming.175

James McGinnis

A few days after the Democrats failed to get a favorable decision for a writ (Fleming v. Commissioners, November 28, 1888) prohibiting the Kanawha County court commissioners from counting Lewiston precinct, Democratic counsel, again lead by St. Clair, appealed to the Supreme Court for Alderson (Alderson v. Commissioners, December 5, 1888).¹⁷⁶ The causes were simple in themselves and were unfavorable to the Democrats. In the original precinct returns Alderson was credited with 3,329 votes and McGinnis with 4,658 votes. After the recount the gain gave Alderson 3,341 and McGinnis 4,638. The commissioners' chief procedure which might have needed correction was the manner in which they arrived at a conclusion in order to certify the returns to the Governor and the Secretary of State. They had refused to consider all the recounted tabulations which, with the returns of other counties of the district, would have elected Alderson.¹⁷⁷ For some precincts they counted the originally certified returns and in others they used the recount. In two precincts they rejected entirely the votes cast.¹⁷⁸ This manipulated tabulation was 3,122 or 3,325 for Alderson and 4,468 or 4,660 for McGinnis.¹⁷⁹

In the Kanawha County recount Alderson demanded the commissioners to sign or give him a bill of exceptions containing some of their procedure in his recount. A bill of exceptions, he informed the counters, was needed for "he intended to review their proceedings by a writ of certiorari in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County."¹⁸⁰ He also asked the commissioners not to adjourn or certify the results of the count until he had prepared a bill of exceptions and had applied for a mandamus. He meant, by mandamus, to test whether the commissioners were bound to sign exceptions and not to certify the result until a writ of certiorari could be obtained from the circuit court to review their proceedings. The canvassers would not consent not to adjourn nor to certify the result of the election. Alderson claimed the commissioners aimed to certify the returns hurriedly and to adjourn and thereby defeat his right to have their proceedings reviewed. After the defendants appeared and argued certain phases of the case, the court issued a mandamus writ requiring a bill of exceptions to be signed and prohibiting the commissioners from adjourning and certifying the returns.¹⁸¹

In reviewing the case the court, considering that a candidate has a right by law to demand of canvassers in session a recount, opined that any candidate has a right to demand a bill of exceptions, and that "commissioners . . . sitting as canvassers . . . are subject to review by . . . [a] Circuit Court on a writ of certiorari."¹⁸² Lastly, the opinion reads that should commissioners refuse to sign and settle a bill of exceptions "they will be required by mandamus" to do so.¹⁸³

The Supreme Court had no power to prohibit the counting of votes in Lewiston precinct merely because of the questionable oaths of that precinct's commissioners. It would not have been rational for Alderson to apply to the high tribunal on the same grounds as Fleming. Naturally his test case was of a different character. The Alderson case decision, which became valuable to Fleming, ruled against the adjournment of the commissioners and against their certifying of the electoral returns before December 15. It also declared that the commissioners were bound to sign bills of exceptions and were subject to review upon a writ of certiorari. Fleming was thus assured of having the commissioners' actions reviewed in his case. St. Clair, it would seem, worked to avoid a duplication of court cases yet to be decided which could, if need be, apply to both Fleming and Alderson.

On December 6, St. Clair, J. E. Brown, and Malcolm Jackson, counsel for Fleming and Alderson, presented the Democrats' mandamus (Alderson v. Commissioners, December 5, 1888) from the high court to the Kanawha County court and demanded the commissioners to sign bills of exceptions and directed them to permit an examination of witnesses. John A. Hutchinson, A. Burlew, and colleagues represented Republican interests. The two former leaders were always among the lawyers acting for not only the Republicans but also for the Kanawha election commissioners in any Supreme Court case growing from the election.

The Democrats, as in their previous action ( Fleming v. Commissioners, November 28, 1888), worked to have the Lewiston precinct excluded from the Kanawha count or recount, for they still claimed the votes illegal because two of the precinct commissioners had not been properly sworn.¹⁸⁴ Acting upon the evidence produced, the court commissioners discarded the Lewiston precinct votes.¹⁸⁵ This invalidation of votes, where Goff had a plurality of eleven,¹⁸⁶ placed Fleming nearer Goff. What the Democrats had lost in the Supreme Court, they had won before the county commissioners.

The little Democratic victory was short-lived when "a Commissioner of Coalburg precinct, A. C. Shaver, was produced and testified that at that precinct he swore the other commissioners; yet nobody swore him . . . ." The (Weekly) State Journal, Republican paper, reported the existence of "precisely the same state of affairs" as in the Lewiston precinct.¹⁸⁷ The court commissioners relegated the Coalburg precinct votes to the Lewiston precinct category.¹⁸⁸ Coalburg precinct originally "gave a Democratic majority of 20 . . . ." The lower court's ruling gave "a gain of 11 to Goff and McGinnis, electing the latter .. .," reads The (Weekly) State Journal.¹⁸⁹ Alderson's fight however, did not stop here.

It has been heretofore shown that Alderson would have been elected by the Kanawha recount but the court commissioners preferred to intersperse some of the original counts with the recounts. [see p. 185].

Could the commissioners have connived to cooperate with the Republicans? It should be recalled that the county court had been accused, by intimation, of being under Republican control.

Commissioners and clerks from Charleston precinct were also examined but the results were inconsequential. The precinct officials "stated that the election was conducted according to law . . ." and any possible errors in counting would be due to over-worked and tired officers. Republican counsel tried to show that after original counting the precinct ballot box had been deposited and later meddled with in the county clerk's office. The court was dissatisfied with the evidence presented against Charleston precinct, especially since the ballots favorably corresponded with the poll book.¹⁹⁰ It decided, however, to accept only the original returns rather than the recounted ballots.¹⁹¹

The consideration of more of the exceptional actions of the court commissioners toward Alderson's and Fleming's recount took most of the time while in session under the mandamus writ and the order prohibiting adjournment of the body or certification of the results until bills of exceptions were signed. Disregarding every Democratic argument the commissioners accepted the original returns of Alum Creek, St. Albans, and Charleston while they accepted the recount of all other precincts of the county, excepting, of course, Coalburg and Lewiston precincts.¹⁹² Considering the evidence at hand, such action was unjustifiable. Fleming favored including all recounts, even Lewiston and Coalburg.¹⁹³ Alderson would have been willing to exclude the recount vote of Lewiston, Alum Creek, and Fields Creek precincts because of the questions arising from those places in reference to the precinct commissioners' oaths.¹⁹⁴

Throughout the whole procedure the commissioners brought forth witnesses but refused to allow either Fleming or Alderson to cross-examine them, to present witnesses, or to "introduce other evidence on the subject . . . ." When witnesses were examined to show that ballots had been tampered with and altered at Charleston and St. Albans, Alderson was not permitted to introduce any contradictory evidence.¹⁹⁵ The court commissioners finally signed and settled bills of exceptions, for Fleming ¹⁹⁶ and Alderson ¹⁹⁷ enabling each to petition for a writ of certiorari.

On December 15, the writ of mandamus, having been obeyed, "the inhibition preventing the commissioners from finally adjourning and certifying the result of the election was wholly removed" by the Supreme Court.¹⁹⁸

Alderson's counsel later stated that the commissioners again intended to defeat any review of their recount proceedings by speedily certifying the Congressional election, this time, before a writ of certiorari could be obtained. Counsel believed, that the election returns had been certified but were kept from the Governor, until the bill of exceptions had been signed and the mandamus removed.¹⁹⁹ Before the commissioners acted, Democratic counsel, on the same day, the 15th, obtained an injunction from the circuit court of Cabell County to prevent the commissioners from sending the certificate to the Governor.²⁰⁰ In this way Alderson's election count, by certiorari, might still be changed and a certificate made out accordingly. When Fleming's writ of certiorari would be granted, it would be usable if the commissioners were still in session reviewing Alderson's case. (Fleming sued for a certiorari writ on January 4, 1889.²⁰¹ )

Kanawha circuit court allowed Alderson a writ of certiorari on December 17, with an order restraining the commissioners from certifying the election to the Governor. Despite these writs and the injunction of the circuit court of Cabell County the commissioners sent the Congressional election certificate to the Governor as well as the Governor-elect's certificate.²⁰²

By the Kanawha circuit court a ruling was awarded, on Alderson's motion, for the commissioners to give reasons why they should not be punished for violating the injunction. This contempt rule the court quashed, on the defendants' urging, because it was "improvidently awarded . . . for want of jurisdiction." Too, the injunction "was dissolved for want of jurisdiction."²⁰³

In June the Supreme Court, in an academic case (Alderson v. Commissioners, June 28, 1889), held that the circuit court had not erred in disolving the injunction and the rule of contempt for "equity has no jurisdiction to enjoin commissioners from certifying the result of their canvass in their county for a representative in the Congress of the United States." Answering the matter about contempt the court announced that, "An appeal from a decree in a suit in equity will not bring up for review an order discharging a rule to show cause why the party shall not be punished for contempt in disobeying an order of injunction made in such suit."²⁰⁴

When the circuit court of Kanawha County awarded the writ of certiorari to Alderson, it remanded its cause to the Kanawha County canvassers, telling them to meet and do the duty expected of them when they originally met to decide the Congressional election. The Democrats must have become perturbed. Though Alderson received proper election credentials from Governor Wilson on March 4, St. Clair and his colleagues submitted the case, in June, to the Supreme Court (Alderson v. Commissioners, June 23, 1889.] They wished to determine whether the circuit court erred in refusing to decide all the points of error and in returning the case to the commissioners "without . . . specific rulings or instructions ..., so... the parties and the commissioners might have the benefit of the decision of the Circuit Court . . . ." This case is also academic and valuable but the reasoning contained in the decision is somewhat lengthy.²⁰⁵

In passing it might be suitable merely to mention the court's more important declarations. It found:

the Circuit Court should decide all matters of law and fact, Including those on the merits fairly arising on the records, either affirming such judgment or order, or reversing or modifying it, and should render such judgment as the inferior tribunal should have rendered, or remand it to that tribunal, where further proceedings are necessary with distinct decision on the points involved in the latter event .... The Circuit Court, where . . . further proceedings are necessary can not retain and try the cause, but must remand it to the inferior tribunal . . .²⁰⁶

When one obtains a bill of exceptions, as did Alderson, "and the count is completed and the result declared" and as a consequence of the exceptions a writ of certiorari has been awarded, the court "Held, that commissioners are not functus officio, but are yet competent to canvass the returns in compliance with the order of the Circuit Court. "²⁰⁷ Judge Henry Brannon, rendering the decision, concluded that the canvasser's "function is never performed, until the act is completed."²⁰⁸

After the Democratic attorneys secured for Fleming a writ of certiorari and it served its purpose, the circuit court of Kanawha County, to Fleming's pleasure, on April 8, 1889, reversed the decisions and discriminations complained of in the original petition for the writ. The circuit court did not determine the rest of the cause but instead, to Fleming's agitation, "directed the commissioners to meet again and perform the duty of canvassing the returns for governor . . . ." At the meeting, cross-examination of witnesses and the introduction of evidence was allowed by the court. The commissioners had refused Fleming these liberties at the original recount. Because of the displeasing action of the circuit court, Fleming submitted a case (Fleming v. Commissioners, June 28, 1889) to the Supreme Court against the commissioners on June 17, hoping to reverse the inferior court's decision and make it hear and determine the commissioners' proceedings which it had not considered.

The Supreme Court referred to the kindred case of Alderson v. Commissioners (June 23, 1889) supra, but could not declare along similar lines of that case's decision because Fleming's petition had not contained his bill of exceptions or the commissioners' record.²⁰⁹ Because his petition failed to show, "that he was prejudiced by the errors complained of, is not sufficient to justify the award of such writ [of certiorari directed toward the Circuit Court], and will be held bad without demurrer at the hearing; and a judgment of a Circuit Court reversing the action of the commissioners upon a certiorari based on such petition will be reversed here with costs in this Court against the party who filed such petition."²¹⁰

While the courts acted on the Kanawha County canvass, party forces worked throughout the state gathering evidence to substantiate fraud charges. A notorious method of uncovering fraud occurred in Mercer County late in November. There Judge David E. Johnson inaugurated an investigation. Mine operators were compelled to present their payrolls to the grand jury for inspection. A Democratic journal published that from the rolls the jury listed nearly a hundred men, mostly boss-dominated Negroes, each of whom cast ballots in Mercer and McDowell Counties while being registered voters in Pocahontas, Virginia.²¹¹ Mercer County's action exemplified efforts elsewhere to gather fraud evidence. The Republican Preston County Journal broadmindedly admitted of the possibility of fraudulent voting throughout the state for both parties.²¹² A more correct idea may be found, but this one would seem to describe the voting situation of election Tuesday.

St. Clair and other Democrats who cooperated in gathering fraud evidence, armed Fleming with material to contest Goff's questionable election. Newspapers made it clear that the face of the returns, with the Kanawha County certificate included, gave Goff a lead of 106 votes. A 110-vote lead was a more authentic number, based on the county returns sent to Henry S. Walker, Secretary of State. In late December, Fleming made a short visit in Charleston,²¹³ presumably to help his party's counsel complete and prepare his notice of contest, with specification and affidavits, which had to be served before January 6, 1889, the end of the sixty-day period permitted for such action by state law as reckoned from election day.²¹⁴

Fleming's notarized notice of contest, with specifications for 35 counties, was delivered to Goff in Clarksburg on January 2, 1889 by Robert Shuttlesworth.²¹⁵ It claimed 1,042 votes were fraudulently cast for Goff,²¹⁶ and that Fleming's plurality was 951 votes.²¹⁷ Under each county specifications were given the names of persons charged to have voted illegally, where they voted, and Fleming's reasons for objecting to each vote cast. A "great majority of these alleged illegal ballots were cast by colored repeaters in Kanawha, Mercer, McDowell, and Fayette Counties. These men were natives of Virginia but were brought to the polls in thinly populated districts and voted by the score."²¹⁸ One of Fleming's counsel told a Wheeling Register reporter that "there was great difficulty in securing competent testimony to establish fraud . . . on which [to base] the contest . . . .²¹⁹

Goff and his forces worked relentlessly to compose a return notice,²²⁰ which, in less than the thirty days allotted for return notices, was accepted by Fleming on January 29.²²¹ It, too, charged fraud at specified voting precincts and in form and spirit was similar to Fleming's notice but it contained forty-nine specifications.²²² Governor E. Willis Wilson later maintained that Goff challenged votes on technicalities, while Fleming challenged them for being illegally cast.²²³ The Preston County Journal epitomized Republican faith in "the General" by announcing that he would "exhaust every lawful means to make effectual his election as Governor . . . ."²²⁴

Skepticism ran rampant in early January. The bone of contention was in obvious outline with two growling forces at bay on each side ready to hurtle.

Democrats and Republicans continued to gather strength in early January, for the legislature was to meet jointly in a few days to decide which persons had been elected to the state's more important offices.

Democratic politicians and St. Clair noticed the least evidence cast their way which might bring to light illegal votes. Fleming, St. Clair, and no doubt other closely allied persons, circulated inquisitive letters among former Democratic election commissioners of the several counties and among any men who might uncover suspicious evidence with reasonable proof.²²⁵ These and voluntary reports aided the Democrats to compile Fleming's notice of contest with specifications to Goff. Similar teamwork was carried on by Goff, the Republican attorneys, John A. Hutchinson and William P. Hubbard, and their party men.²²⁶

Mercer County's circuit court indicted many persons for having illegally cast votes.²²⁷ The United States District Court took a hand in an election investigation which appeared to be assuming statewide proportions. Under Judge John J. Jackson's guidance it summoned witnesses before the Grand Jury from Fayette, Greenbrier, Hancock, Jackson, Kanawha, Marion, McDowell, Mercer, Monongalia, Monroe, Ohio, Preston, Roane, Webster, Wetzel, Wirt, and Wyoming Counties.²²⁸

Toward the end of the first week in January legislators, politicians, office-seekers, and others including a few statesmen, swooped down upon Charleston to plan action preparatory to the convening of the legislature.²²⁹ Parties corralled their men into caucuses to arrange, if possible, especially, for filling the offices of speaker of the House, president of the Senate and also of United States Senator. An additional question was the gubernatorial election.²³⁰

The biennial meeting of both branches of the legislature took place on the second Wednesday of the month, January 9, and at 2:30 P. M., Henry S. Walker, Secretary of State, presented to the House of Delegates "the returns in his possession [sic] of the election held for Governor," and other offices, which had been forwarded to him by the several county returning boards. In a written communication he told that "the Circuit Court of Kanawha County" had by injunction prohibited him from transmitting the Kanawha County certificate for Governor to the speaker of the House.²³¹

According to the 1872 state constitution and Code, the county election returns which were sent to the Secretary of State were directed to the speaker of the House of Delegates and as soon as the organization of the House was completed, the speaker was to open the sealed returns and thereby publish them in the presence of a majority of each house of the legislature, in joint session.²³²

The Democrats may have hoped to forestall Fleming's certification to Walker, when Alderson obtained his injunction from the circuit court of Cabell County to prohibit the Kanawha County commissioners from certifying the Congressional election certificate to Walker and Governor E. Willis Wilson. Kanawha election officials, however, ignored the injunction by forwarding all returns on December 15.²³³ Without Kanawha, Fleming's election was assured.²³⁴

Another method of handling the Kanawha County returns evolved. The canvassers had granted a bill of exceptions to Fleming. On January 4, St. Clair sued for a writ of certiorari for his client so that the Kanawha County commissioners' counting methods might be reviewed.²³⁵ If obtained before the legislature could declare a candidate elected Fleming may still have had an opportunity to be named Governor through a changed result of the one county. The certiorari writ was not immediately granted. As late as April 8, the circuit court reversed certain decisions of the Kanawha County commissioners in favor of Fleming.²³⁶ When the legislature met Fleming's petition for certiorari was pending.²³⁷

Fleming took a further step to prevent the original Kanawha County returns from being presented to the legislature when, on January 9, he received from Circuit Judge A. E. Campbell an injunction prohibiting Walker from so delivering the returns.²³⁸ Walker had waited until the afternoon before delivering any returns. He was strongly interested in Fleming's case and possibly he purposely avoided presenting the returns earlier in the day; he may have preferred to wait until the injunction was obtained.

Walker broke no laws. No provisions existed to tell the exact time returns were to be presented to the speaker of the House of Delegates, though it was understood that the presentation of returns must take place during the time the House was being organized or immediately thereafter. ²³⁹

Republican counsel was not easily perturbed. Without notifying Fleming, Goff, who was also named a defendant with Walker in the injunction, received from Judge Francis A. Guthrie of the Kanawha County circuit court a writ of mandamus nisi, returnable at 9 o'clock A.M., January 10, to compel Walker "to do what he had been enjoined from doing."²⁴⁰ Walker was, thus, to overlook the injunction and proceed to deliver the Kanawha County gubernatorial certificate to the speaker of the House.

Guthrie had cognizance of the existing injunction, and from the bench deliberately proclaimed that he would ignore it. This stand aroused the Democratic attorneys, St. Clair and Okey Johnson, who sensed Fleming's danger and Walker's dilemna of not knowing which court to obey. They asked that the Supreme Court issue a rule against Guthrie and Goff to show why a prohibition writ should not be issued against a Judge for ignoring and setting aside the injunction and for considering the mandamus case without notifying Fleming or giving him an opportunity to appear before the circuit court to defend his involved interests.²⁴¹

The court granted the rule returnable on January 11 when the respondents appeared and motioned that the rule be quashed. Republican attorneys, Hutchinson and Hubbard, claimed the injunction awarded by Judge Campbell was void, "because a court of equity has no jurisdiction to restrain a public officer from performing a plain duty required by the constitution." The respondents continued to say that if the injunction were awarded upon any jurisdiction or right "then the action of the Circuit Court in the mandamus proceedings . . . [was] such an abuse of its powers and jurisdiction as . . . [would] be prevented by prohibition." The court considered the respondent's motion to quash the rule through the pivotal question of whether Judge Campbell had jurisdiction to award the injunction. The decision was made on January 12.²⁴²

Judge Adam C. Snyder, president of the high court, held that a court of equity had no jurisdiction to enjoin the Secretary of State from delivering election returns, "properly transmitted to him," to the speaker of the House of Delegates. In treating as null and void the injunction, Guthrie had not erred.²⁴³ Quoting Walton v. Develing, 61 III. 201, the court declared that "where the law plainly requires an officer to perform a duty," and he proceeds without abusing "his power" he and "the court . . . must be governed by the law." This idea makes writs of injunction and mandamus, in such cases, invalid.²⁴⁴ One department of government, the court said, "shall not invade any other" and the assembly, possessing "the power to coerce the production of papers and documents, . . . would not require the aid of the courts" to compel the Secretary of State to deliver the papers if it deemed the delivery Walker's duty.²⁴⁵ The assembly would not need to resort to a court mandamus to force delivery of returns, nor could the courts restrain by injunction the delivery of election returns to the assembly.²⁴⁶

The judiciary stated that the injunction's issuance was presumably prompted by the convening of the legislature, otherwise it would not apply to the Secretary of State, for at no other time could he deliver the election returns.²⁴⁷

Though the mandamus case appeared to have no jurisdiction, the Supreme Court sustained the respondents' motion to quash the rule, because Fleming had petitioned the court only on the ground that he was the plaintiff in the injunction suit and that the injunction was ignored.²⁴⁸

On January 22, each branch of the legislature was prepared to receive Governor Wilson's biennial message which was ready when the session first convened.²⁴⁹ Almost at the outset in a division entitled "Fraud and Corruption in Elections," Wilson extolled the American system of voting and vociferously deplored and condemned the misuse of the ballot as "more dangerous than open revolt" to the "foundation" of the "superstructure of our political fabric." He decried the raising of funds for campaign expenses and distributing them "to corrupt the voter and defeat the public will," and of selecting men for public office because of their "wealth and . . . willingness to . . . defile the ballot box."²⁵⁰

Though his thesis may not have been entirely infallible because of the expansion of population and industry, Wilson strove to show by figures that the numerous reports of election frauds had foundation of fact. He gave a "nice picture" of the election of 1888 when he wrote:

The capitations of 1884 were 133,522, and the entire vote, after the most active political campaign . . . in the State. 137,687. The capitations for 1888 were 147,408, and the entire vote 169,440. The difference in the capitation and the vote in 1884, was 4,066; in 1888, it . . . [was] 12,032. This shows an increase of votes in four years of 21,863, which, if legitimate, would indicate a population of 900,000, and an increase in four years of much more than 100,000. It is certain that no such increase has taken place.²⁵¹

In his biennial message, Wilson gave suggestions for the revision of the state's election laws to prevent bribery and illegal votings ²⁵² and, later, in a special message he again stressed the need for this legislation.²⁵³

The constitution of 1862 allowed the legislature to provide "for a registry of voters," and to pass necessary laws to prevent "intimidation, disorder, or violence, at the polls, and corruption or fraud, in voting."²⁵⁴ Under this clause a statute provided for compulsory registration of voters and for a board of registration, the latter having appellate jurisdiction to determine a person's questioned right to vote.²⁵⁵ Legislative enactments also provided "test oaths" for certain classes of citizens, that they were to take an oath "that they had not . . . borne arms against the United States or. . . West Virginia, or . . . [the restored government of Virginia, or] given aid or comfort to persons" in such hostilities.²⁵⁶ The provided "test oath" which a registrar could demand of an applicant and the registration laws were used in conjunction with an amendment added to the constitution in 1865 which disfranchised former Confederates and their allies.²⁵⁷ One who could not take the "test oath" automatically fell under the constitutional voting ban.²⁵⁸

Many of the persons who had been supporters of the Confederate States of America were disfranchised Democrats.²⁵⁹ In 1870 certain "test oaths" were removed ²⁶⁰ but the registration oath remained. Judge Jackson of the United States district court "declared that the Fifteenth Amendment applied to white men as well as to black men" and that election officials were to register all men who wished to vote. The Democrats, thereby, gained control of the state in the autumnal election and "the legislature of 1871 made quick work of the removal of all disabilities."²⁶¹

William H. H. Flick

Delegate William H. H. Flick's proposed amendment entitling all male citizens to vote, excepting minors, the insane, paupers, etc., was submitted to a popular referendum and adopted.262 Further Democratic strength was vigorously apparent in the constitutional convention of 1872 and was felt in the new constitution which amply provided for the safety of the civil and political liberties that had been formerly infringed.263 Professor Ambler of West Virginia University has said that "the Democrats had only themselves to blame" for the election situation of 1888. "It will be recalled that the constitution of 1872, made by them, forbade the registration of voters and restricted the power of the legislature in regulating elections."264. To permit ex-Confederates to be free from stigmatic "test oaths" as a voting criterion, the constitution of 1872 specifically allowed no prerequisite "test oath" and allowed no "board or court of registration of voters" to be authorized by the legislature and provided that "no citizen would ever be denied" the right to vote because his name had "not been registered or listed as a qualified voter."265

Registration might exist but voting was not to depend upon it. Wilson favored a registration of voters, in his biennial message, when he interpreted the constitutional provision disallowing a board or court of registration as not meaning opposition to a "single registrar for a county, or one for each magisterial district, [which] would not constitute a board, nor could such constitute a court unless judicial functions . . . [were] conferred." He proposed that prima fade evidence of a person's right to vote be registration and that new registrants be required to prove their voting "qualifications before the commissioners of election, who should record them as unregistered voters." Wilson also preferred that ballots be numbered to afford some correspondence with the poll books or that some other mode be found as a means to identify ballots in election contests.²⁶⁶

Wilson's message met with the approval of many men of the two major parties, though the spirit of some of his political opponents of the Republican party might be mirrored in the words of The Preston County Journal. In conclusion this paper reported the message to be "a reasonably good document, . . . as good as could be expected from a man of the Governor's ability."²⁶⁷ In its very next issue the paper considered the message "a document that . . . ought to be read, for it touches . . . live questions . . . "²⁶⁸ Wilson called the extra session of the legislature in 1890 on several counts, including the gubernatorial contest and further revision of the state's election laws, and to his message reiterating his desires for better election laws was appended an election reform bill.²⁶⁹ At least an upshot of the 1888 election and of the urgent appeal of the Governor for election reform were revisions adopted in 1889 and 1890. In 1891, the Australian ballot system was finally adopted, though "the registration of voters had to await a constitutional amendment, ratified eleven years later."²⁷⁰

Ill feeling among the parties increased when many days were spent to decide issues other than the election of state officers. Of this period after the election William A. MacCorkle said:

Every element of discord had been. stirred up. The Re- publicans particularly were sore because they thought they were being bereft of their first victory In the state In many years. The Democrats . . . believed the Republicans had slipped up on them by the use of money and [by] unfair means were attempting to get control of the state government.²⁷¹

Party lines were closely drawn between the two branches of the legislature, the Democrats controlling the lower house and the Republicans controlling the upper house. Throughout the state speculation was rife as to the results of the line-up. On joint ballot the Democrats had forty- six members, a majority of one vote.²⁷² Many Republican senators intensely disliked this outlook and it would seem that they pretended to be disunited ²⁷³ to delay the gubernatorial issue itself, or else to provide time to devise a plan favorable to Goff.²⁷⁴

A Republican source said the Senate would have organized "on the first day" [but] "it was deemed best by the Republican leaders not to organize until the injunction [against Walker] was dissolved . . .. The result without Kanawha County . . . would have elected Fleming by 1400 majority." The same source reads that the Democrats protested that they did not want the result declared until the contest was decided.²⁷⁵

Senator Edwin Maxwell had wanted assurances that Goff would bedeclared governor on the prima facie election returns, otherwise he would persist in submitting to a disorganized Senate 276 until his point was gained and Goff's position confirmed. Other Republicans were reported to have similar theories.277 Walker had delivered the Kanawha County certificates on January 14.278 Not until February 1, did the senators appear in the House of Delegates to name the new state officers,279 although several times during the interval the House had communicated to the Senate its readiness to publish the certified returns for state officers.280

Edwin Maxwell

John E. Kenna

In harmony with the act of Congress passed on July 25, 1866, to choose a United States Senator, the first joint assembly convened on January 23 in the hall of the House of Delegates from noon until three o'clock.281 West Virginians were kept in doubt over the senatorship for many days, because each meeting ended indecisively. Early, John E. Kenna and Goff lead the race, though such prominent men as Fleming, St. Clair, William L. Wilson, William P. Hubbard and others had a follower or two at each roll-call.282 Little headway was made until as late as February 21, the day preceding the legislature's permanent adjournment, when Kenna received a majority of votes cast, 46 to Goff's 45.283 Rumor had it that Goff's chief political aspiration was the senatorship.284 If Goff had been chosen for the senatorship, the president of the Senate, Robert S. Carr, would have become Governor, ex officio, by constitutional provision, remaining in office until one had been properly chosen.285

A glance at the Senate record will show that the fight waxed strong over an influential minority who finally became victorious. Carr, a Republican Union Laborite, who was, in political parlance, termed "independent" and "doubtful," William Woodyard, Roane County, Joseph Snider, Monongalia County, and A. C. Minear, Tucker County, Republicans, would not attend Republican caucuses or support their contentions. These men had placed themselves on a Republican blacklist by supporting Camden for United States Senator in the preceding legislature, and their present stand was aided by their few Democratic colleagues in the Senate. Republican members were willing to allow the Democrats to organize the body providing Carr and Minear would not fill any important posts, a proposition the Democrats refused.²⁸⁶ The staunchness of these few and the predicament they caused induced enough Republicans to elect Carr as the Senate's president on the 126th ballot.²⁸⁷

Republicans steadfastly determined to avoid a declaration for governor, if Goff were not to be named.²⁸⁸ In time they realized their stubborn attitude was gaining them only the wrath of the taxpayer.²⁸⁹ The Sentinel berated both houses of the legislature for avoiding the gubernatorial issue by carrying on other legislation.²⁹⁰ Finally, on February 1, a joint assembly met to name the state officers.²⁹¹

Statutes laid down by the early state fathers were toyed with to meet political viewpoints, and each party did possess a dogmatic viewpoint. After the joint session moved toward the rousing gubernatorial issue the Democrats also showed a political stubbornness. They proposed that the contested election be decided before a declaration of governor be made.²⁹² This attitude was maddening to the Republicans, who held that it was improper in all its legal and constitutional aspects.²⁹³

Let us consider for a moment the two parties' contentions with their legal ramifications and interrelations. Immediately after the organization of the House, according to the constitution, the House speaker was to open the election returns before a majority of members of both legislative branches assembled in the House of Delegates' hall. Contested gubernatorial returns were to be determined by a joint vote of both houses "in . . . [a] manner . . . prescribed by law."²⁹⁴ Fleming's and Goff's respective contest notice and counter notice with depositions by counties were already filed in the legislature and printed in the House Journal before the legislature met to name the next governor ²⁹⁵ according to the largest number of votes one candidate received.²⁹⁶ Democrats pointed out that the contest should be decided first before determining the eighth governor and that this could be done according to the "manner . . . prescribed by law" in the Code.²⁹⁷ At any rate no law specified that a governor should be named on prima facie returns when a contest was registered, nor that a contest should not be decided before a governor should be named.

In a "manner . . . prescribed by law" was the fortifying constitutional phrase upon which the Republicans leaned, for under it the Code specified that a gubernatorial contest was to be referred to a joint committee of three delegates and two senators "for examination and report." Upon its report, concurrence of the houses of the legislature was to determine the person rightly elected. The president of the Senate, furthermore, was named in the law as the presiding officer over this type of joint assembly, which, Republicans explained, was a judicial body and entirely different from the one presided over by the House speaker opening election returns. The protective tariff party stiffly maintained that the statutory law remained to be carried out after a man was declared governor on the prima facie returns.²⁹⁸

While the Democratic senators anxiously waited for their Republican colleagues to collect themselves to name a governor, Mexico Vanpelt provoked Senator Presley W. Morris' ire by resolving that the House be notified that the Democrats, at least, were prepared to meet in joint assembly. The suggestion that the Democratic House work with the Democratic senators was vigorously voted out of order.²⁹⁹ Toward the end of January, Delegate Wellington Vrooman, Republican of Wood County, perhaps hoping to awaken his party in the Senate to its duty, ineffectively proposed that the election returns be opened by the House speaker who, of course, could not legally function without a majority of both houses being present.³⁰⁰

Records indicate that Delegate Joseph Sprigg, Democrat, and Senator Morris, Republican, were the dominant spokesmen for their parties in the joint assembly. During the session many points of order were raised and a vote to sustain a position always managed to use some of the legislature's valuable 45-day normal period of convening. Frequently the chair overruled Morris who usually raised parliamentary questions. At the joint assembly's beginning, General Sprigg presented Fleming's contest petition and a copy of Fleming's certiorari writ granted by the Kanawha Circuit Court and filed them with the House clerk. Morris raised the point, after the papers were read, that they were contest material and that the convening assembly had met to count votes and declare the election of state officers.301 " . . . Speaker Woods declared that the point was raised too late," and the assembly sustained him,302 but the Republicans unavailingly wondered "how . . . it [could] be told that a paper was improper until it was known what it contained."303

Joseph Sprigg

Daniel Mayer

Sprigg's resolution that the declaration for governor be withheld until the contest was decided, met with the disapproval of the Republicans, especially that of Morris.304 Immediately after its passage Maxwell offered a resolution to publish all returns.305 In these two resolutions is presented the crux of the whole Democratic and Republican argument. The ensuing debate was lively. In it Morris severely criticized the speaker's ruling until Carr, president of the Senate, left his position next to the speaker and intervened with a threat to hold Morris to "personal account." After the blunt interruption Morris apologized to Carr and resumed speaking by deflating the "Democratic proceedings."306 Major Alexander C. Moore, Harrison County delegate, ably presented the Republican theory. He declared that the opening of the returns was the speaker's duty and in conclusion he emphasized that, "This . . . joint assembly has nothing to do with the contest - that is to be tried by a joint assembly of another character. This proceeding is under the constitution. The contest is under the statute." Senator George E. Price made a lengthy and able speech from the Democratic viewpoint. Anthony D. Garden, William E. Lively, Sprigg, Price, John W. McCreery, and Senator Samuel L. Flournoy, Democrats, and Delegates Samuel R. Heanen, Daniel Mayer, Republicans, gave their opinions during different intervals of the debate.307

William E. Lively, Democratic delegate of Lewis County, offered a substitute for Maxwell's resolution. It was similar except that Lively purposely ignored the word governor when he listed the officers for whom his resolve provided.³⁰⁸ Flournoy listened to a plea of Maxwell and consequently the former moved that an amendment be made to Lively's resolve to the effect that the returns for governor be opened but not recorded in the legislative journals, and that they be saved for the joint contest committee to be appointed according to law.³⁰⁹ The amendment and Lively's resolution were accepted by a strict party vote defeating Maxwell's resolution.³¹⁰

Under Sprigg's and Lively's resolutions the first official returns were opened, and after a few were read Senator Benjamin H. Oxley, Democrat, pointed out that under the adopted resolutions the returns for governor should not be read; they need be merely opened. He was overruled by Woods on the ground that his contention "was not well taken."³¹¹ Then Sprigg resolved that the gubernatorial returns should not be read, but the majority vote was in the negative.³¹² It is difficult to know whether the idea had shortly pounced upon Sprigg or whether he disfavored reading the returns when he accepted Flournoy's amendment.

The Democrats deftly resorted to one last move to prevent all the returns from being published. When the speaker prepared to read the Clay County returns Sprigg objected, because Fleming named illegal votes cast in Clay County. Sprigg lost.³¹³ Was this an effort to keep some returns pending for fear Goff might be declared elected at the end of the session through some political manipulation based on all the read returns? Oxley offered a resolution that the returns for governor from any county disputed in either Goff's or Fleming's contest notices be not read.³¹⁴ After a warm debate the resolution was finally adopted.³¹⁵ The shot in the dark interposed between reading election counts had reached its target. According to the legislature the returns already read were not to be construed by Fleming or Goff as claims to office. Opened and unopened returns were saved for the contest committee to be appointed.³¹⁶

Morris, leading the opposition, presented a paper to the assembly entitled, "The Protest of Forty-Five Republican Members of the Legislature of West Virginia."³¹⁷ He had been sorely vexed throughout most of the joint combat and this move to register the Democrats as inferior statesmen and mere politicians on the official records would elevate the Republicans in the eyes of future generations. Morris was not to be satisfied, for the Democrats assented to Sprigg's counteracting resolution condemning the protest as containing untrue recitals couched in disreputable language and preventing its entrance upon the House Journal.³¹⁸

The Fleming-Goff contest was only one troubled election matter with which the legislature had to cope. Contested seats in the House of Delegates over Mercer and Putnam Counties and over the third delegate district, comprising McDowell and Wyoming Counties, were also issues.³¹⁹ There were two contested seats in the Senate.³²⁰ The certificate from Webster County for attorney general was absent, and one for auditor from Wood County was incomplete, issues which elicited a committee investigation.³²¹ Another outstanding investigation, though far less striking than the gubernatorial question, resulted after A. B.Shelton, a delegate of Lincoln County, charged that one A. C. Ray, a Republican of Hamlin, Lincoln County, had attempted to bribe him to be absent from the assembly, and that one Henry Poteet, a Republican controlled Democrat of Barboursville, Cabell County, had similarly approached him after that body .was organized. Both attempts, he claimed, were aimed to facilitate Goff's selection as United States Senator.³²²

For the joint contest committee to consider the evidence presented by Fleming and Goff ³²³ in the gubernatorial matter, the legislature provided its members per diem and mileage expenses.³²⁴ On February 19, the Senate chose its two members allotted under the constitution. They were Republicans, Presley W. Morris of Ritchie County and Goff's old law partner,³²⁵ Edwin Maxwell of' Harrison County.³²⁶ The next day the House of Delegates elected its allotted number, William L. Kee of Randolph County, William E. Lively of Lewis County, and Joseph Sprigg of Hardy County, all Democrats.³²⁷ Party ties were strong in the November election and they continued through the selecting of the joint contest committee, a committee which by the essence of its political membership would quite likely function solely along party lines. The special assembly which would be called to decide the involved issue on the committee's findings would be similar in party strength to the regular 1889 biennial legislature, for its membership would be the same. At least the joint committee's existence satisfied the law creating it.

During the interval preceding the committee's report effort was spent to change the opinions of the closely aligned 46 and the 45 legislators, Democrats and Republicans respectively, on joint ballot. One vote could select a governor. In future days, the committee was supposed to separate the chaff from the wheat in the many sided election story.

Read Part II

Notes for Part I

1. See Festus P. Summers, Johnson Newlon Camden, A Study in Individualism, especially Chaps. XI, XIII, and XVIII.

2. Appleton's Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1888, New Series XIII, p. 841; Wheeling Register, May 4, 1888.

3. Appletons', XIII, p. 842; Wheeling Register, August 1, 1888.

4. Appletons', XIII, p. 842; Wheeling Register, September 14, 1888.

5. Appletons', XIII, p. 841.

6. Wheeling Register, May 4, 1888; Appletons' XIII, p. 841.

7. Wheeling Register, May 4, 1888.

8. Ibid., May 4, 1888.

9. Ibid., May 4, 1888; Code of West Virginia, 1887 (this work, hereafter referred to as Code of 1887), (Second Edition), Appendix, Sees. 13, 14, p. 981, 17, 18, p. 982; Acts of the Legislature of West Virginia, at its Eighteenth Regular Session, Commencing January 12, 1887, (Acts and Joint Resolutions of the Extra Session, 1887). (This work, hereafter referred to as Acts of 1887), Chap. I Secs. 13, 14, p. 168, 17, pp. 169-170, and 18, p. 170.

10. Wheeling Register, May 4, 1888.

11. Ibid., August 1, 1888

12. The (Weekly) State Journal, July 5, 1888.

13. Appletons', XIII, p. 842; Wheeling Register, November 21, 1888; Acts of 1887, Joint Resolutions No. 16, pp. 230-231, No. 19, p. 232 and No. 21, p. 232.

14. George W. Atkinson, and Alvaro F. Gibbens, Prominent Men of West Virginia, p. 399.

15. Wheeling Register, August 1, 1888.

16. Summers, op. cit. p. 299; also see p. 264.

17. Ibid., pp. 437-438.

18. Ibid., p. 420; James Morton Callahan, Semi-Centennial History of West Virginia, pp. 244, 464-465; Millard Kessler Bushong, A History of Jefferson County, West Virginia, p. 297.

19. Summers, op. cit., p. 420.

20. H. E. Davis to A. Brooks Fleming, July 27, 1888. Fleming MSS.

21. Summers, op. cit., pp. 420-421.

22. J. D. Ewing to Fleming, July 3, 1888, Fleming MSS.

23. The (Weekly) State Journal, June 14, 1888.

24. B. H. Oxley to Fleming, March 8, 1888, Fleming MSS.

25. Id. to Id., June 30, 1888, Fleming MSS.

26. Fleming to Oxley, March 13, 1888, Fleming's duplicate, also see Oxley to Fleming, April 26, 1888, Fleming MSS.

27. Fleming to Johnson N. Camden, June 18, 1888, Fleming's duplicate, Fleming MSS.

28. Id. to Id., June 2, 1888, Fleming's duplicate, Fleming MSS.

29. J. B. Sommerville to Fleming, June 29, 1888; E. Sehon to id., June 16, 1888; Fleming to J. L. Warder, M.D., no date, Fleming's duplicate; Fleming to Thomas Wm. Darrah, July 18, 1888, Fleming's duplicate, Fleming MSS.

30. William Alexander MacCorkle, The Recollections of Fifty Years of West Virginia, p. 146.

31. B. W. Byrne to Fleming, June 28, 1888, Fleming MSS.

32. Fleming to Byrne, July 2, 1888, Fleming's duplicate, Fleming MSS.

33. James Morrow, Jr., to Fleming, August 11 and 14, 1888; Fleming to Morrow, August 7 and 13, 1888, Fleming's duplicate, Fleming MSS. Morrow died on November 18, 1888.

34. Marshall Define to Fleming, July 15, 1888; Thomas M. Darrah to id., July 17, 1888; A. W. Knotts to id., July 19, 1888; W. V. Chichester to id., July 25, 1888; J. N. Leach to id., July 28, 1888; A. W. Knotts to id., August 9, 1888; W. W. Brown to id., August II, 1888; A. L. Prichard to id., August 14, 1888, Fleming MSS.

35. Summers, op. cit., p. 421.

36. The (Weekly) State Journal, August 16, 1888.

37. Columbus Sehon to Fleming, August 10, 1888, Fleming MSS.

38. The Sentinel, August 18, 1888.

39. Ibid.

39. Ibid., August 18, 1888.

40. Wheeling Register, August 16, 1888.

41. Ibid., August 18, 1888.

42. Ibid., August 16, 1888.

43. The Sentinel, August 18, 1888.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid., August 25, 1888.

46. W. W. Brown to Fleming, August 11, 1888, Fleming MSS.

47. Apptetons', XIII, p. 842.

48. MacCorkle, op. cit., p. 439.

49. Wheeling Register, August 17, 1888.

50. Ibid.

51. Ibid.

52. The Sentinel, August 25, 1888

53. E. Willis Wilson to Fleming, August 25,1888, Fleming MSS; Morgantown Post, September 1, 1888; Atkinson and Gibbens, op. cit., pp. 12 and 438; Biographical and Portrait Cyclopedia of Monongalia, Marion and Taylor Counties, West Virginia, Sec. on "Marion County," p. 2.

54. F. O. Bond to Fleming, August 24, 1888, Fleming MSS; The (Parkersburg) Sentinel, August 28, 1888.

55. John J. Brown to Fleming, August 17, 1888, Fleming MSS.

56. Okey Johnson to Fleming, August 18, 1888; F. O. Bond, to id., August 24, 1888; John R. Donehoo to id., September 11, 1888, Fleming MSS.

57. J. H. Bryan to Fleming, October 18, 1888, Fleming MSS.

58. Fleming to A. V. McDowell, August 24, 1888, Fleming's duplicate, Fleming MSS.

59. Atkinson and Gibbens, op. cit., p. 226.

60. The (Weekly) State Journal, June 14, 1888. The quotation given therein was attributed to A. W. Campbell.

61. The (Weekly) State Journal, August 23, 1888.

62. Robert F. Fleming to Fleming, August 24, 1888, Fleming MSS.

63. The (Weekly) State Journal, August 16, 1888.

64. Morgantown Post, August 4, 1888; The (Weekly) State Journal, August 20, 1888; also see other partisan (Republican) publications.

65. The (Weekly) State Journal, August 23, 1888.

66. Appletons' XIII, p. 842.

67. Ibid., p. 842; Code of 1887, Appendix, Sec. 14, p. 981; Acts of 1887, Chap. L., Sec. 14, p. 168.

68. The Daily State Journal, August 23, 1888.

69. MacCorkle, op. cit., p. 434.

70. The Daily State Journal, August 23, 1888.

71. Robert F. Fleming to Fleming, August 24, 1888, Fleming MSS.

72. The Daily State Journal, August 23, 1888.

73. J. B. Kildon [Kildred (?)] to Fleming, August 28, 1888; D. W. Gall to id., September 3, 1888; Julian E. Fling to id., September 5, 1888; Putnam County Democratic Executive Committee to id., September 30, 1888, Fleming MSS.

74. L. P. Fleming to Fleming, October 8, 1888; Democratic Committee on Speakers, Lewisburg to id., October 15, 1888; C. W. Daily to id., October 24, 1888; Fleming MSS.

75. The Sentinel, August 25, September 1, and November 3, 1888; Hugh Garrett to Fleming, October 29, 1888, Fleming MSS; Summers, op cit., p. 430.

76. The Sentinel, August 25 and November 3, 1888; Wheeling Register September 5, 14, and October 1, 1888; The (Weekly) State Journal, September 27, 1888.

77. Ibid., November 1, 1888.

78. Wheeling Register, October 11, 12, 13, and 24, 1888.

79. Ibid., November 4, 1888.

80. Robert F. Fleming to Fleming, August 24, 1888, Fleming MSS.

81. Wheeling Register, September 4, 1888.

82. Ibid.

83. Ibid., September 13, 1888.

84. Ibid., September 14, 1888; Broadside distributed among voters by Republican party, in Fleming MSS and in A. B. Fleming's Scrapbook in the possession of A. Brooks Fleming, Jr., Fairmont, West Virginia.

85. Quoted from Ibid.

86. E. N. Turner to Fleming, September 14, 1888, Fleming MSS.

87. Charles J. Faulkner, Jr., to Fleming, September 30, 1888, Fleming MSS.

88. T. S. Riley to Fleming, September 27, 1888, Fleming MSS.

89. Fleming's Scrapbook.

90. Wheeling Register, October 3, 1888.

91. W. E. R. Byrne to Fleming, October 7, 1888, Fleming MSS.

92. Wheeling Register, October 28, 1881

93. Ibid.

94. Ibid., September 2 and 14, 1888.

95. Appletons', XIII, p. 842.

96. Wheeling Sunday Register, November 3, 1888.

97. Wheeling Register, November 3 and 4, 1888; B. Wilson to Fleming, November 5, 1888, Fleming MSS.

98. The (Weekly) State Journal, September 20, 1888.

99. Wheeling Register, September 16, 1888.

100. Appletons', XIII, p. 843.

101. The Sentinel, September 8, 1888; Summers, op. cit., p. 430.

102. Morgantown Post, The Preston County Journal, The Sentinel, The (Weekly) State Journal, Wheeling Register, and Wheeling Sunday Register, issues during September through December, 1888 and throughout 1889 and January and early February, 1890; B. F. Martin to Fleming, November 10, 1888; Joseph Sprigg to id., November 14 and 21, 1888; Judge Thomas Stealey to id., November 14, 1888; R. F. Kidd to id., November 21, 1888; Nathan Banks to id., November 22, 1888; W. L. Wllson to id., November 22, 1888; H. C. Hanigan to id., December 8, 1888, Fleming MSS.

103. Journal of the House of Delegates, of the State of West Virginia, 1889 (Each House Journal hereafter referred to as House Journal followed by the proper time reference), pp. 11-30, 32-38, 42-46, 47-93, 184-308; and 319-320; Wheeling Register, November 27 and December 7, 1888.

104. Precinct and county reports were published in most state papers throughout November, 1888. Morgantown Post, November 17, 1888; Wheeling Register, November 22, 24, 26, 1888.

105. J. F. Allen to Fleming, November 4, 1888; T. S. Riley to id., November 6, 10, 14, 24, 1888; J. N. Camden to id., November 7, 1888; P. M. Robinson to id., November 7, 1888; R. B. Yowell to id., November 7, 1888; E. A. Bennett to id., November 8, 1888; W. B. Maxwell to id., November 8, 1888; C. P. Dorr to id., November 8, 1888; Joseph Moreland to id., November 10, 1888; W. L. Laidley to id., November 14, 1888; Henry S. Walker to id., November 14, 15, 16, 1888; W. B. Chilton to id., November 19, 1888; William M. Clayton to id., November 20, 1888; Alfred Caldwell to id., December 5, 1888, Fleming MSS.

106. L. P. Feming to Fleming, November 8, 1888; W. D. Beaty to id., November 11, 1888; J. B. Brookover to id., November 11, 1888; T. M. Calbert to id., November 11, 1888; P. J. Heran to id., November 11, 1888; T. H. Buchanan to id., November 12, 1888; G. A. Gibbons to id., November 12, 1888; Thomas Fleming to id., November 14, 1888; L. W. Kelley to id., November 20, 1888; Cordelia R. Brooks (Fleming's Aunt) to id., November 21, 1888; D. A. Brawley to id., December 12, 1888, Fleming MSS.

107. E. A. Bennett to Fleming, November 8, 1888; Judge Thomas Stealey to id., November 14, 1888; Henry Cunningham to id., November 15, 1888; "H. C. O." to id., November 26, 1888, Fleming MSS.

108. MacCorkle, op. cit., p. 440.

109. Wheeling Register, November 12, 1888, referring to Wheeling Intelligencer article; The (Weekly) State Journal, Supplement, November 29, 1888; MacCorkle, op. cit., p. 436.

110. The (Weekly) State Journal, Supplement, November 29, 1888; Joseph Sprigg to Fleming, November 14, 1888; P. E. Canfield to id., November 22, 1888; J. M. Hauser, to id., November 26 and 30, 1888; E. E. Higgs to id., November 30, 1888; John Bassel to id., December 16, 1888: C. S. White to id., December 28, 1888; T. G. Brady to id., March 28, 1889; W. B. Haymond to id., September 16, 1889, Fleming MSS.

111. Bushong, op. cit., pp. 8-9.

112. The (Weekly) State Journal, Supplement, December 13, 1888; Charles Henry Ambler, West Virginia, The Mountain State, New York; (1940), pp. 458- 460, 489-490; Callahan, op. cit., Chap XI. pp. 183-222.

113. Report on Population of the United States at the Eleventh Census; 1890. (This work, hereafter referred to as Report on Population, 1890). Part I, p. XXXIV.

114. Frederick Jackson Turner, The Frontier in American History, especially Chapter I, "The Significance of the Frontier," pp. 1-38, and p. 39. Chapter I was "a paper read at the meeting of the American Historical Association in Chicago, July 12, 1893." The text of the Chapter "is that of the Report of the American Historical Association for 1893, pp. 199-227."

115. Ambler, op cit., pp. 461, 489-490; MacCorkle, op cit., p. 434. See APPENDIX, Table 1.

116. Ibid., Table 1.

117. Ibid.

118. Ibid.

119. Ibid.

120. Ibid.

121. Report on Population, 1890, Part II, p. 24.

122. APPENDIX, Table 1.

123. Report on Population, 1890, Part I, p. 69,

124. Ambler, op. cit. p. 461; Callahan, op. cit., p. 183-222; MacCorkle, op. cit. p. 434.

125. Ambler, op. cit., p. 461.

126. Ibid., p. 461.

127. Ibid., pp. 463-464.

128. Wheeling Register, November 18, 1888; B. F. Martin to Fleming, November 10, 1888; Judge John Brannon to id., November 21, 1888; Robert W. Monroe to id., November 21, 1888; Fleming MSS; MacCorkle, op. cit., p. 438.

129. Joseph Sprigg to Fleming, November 21, 1888; Nathan Banks to id., November 22, 1888; Lee Crouch to id., November 22, 1888; Robert Fleming (Fleming's Brother) to id., November 23, 1888; T. S. Riley to id., November 24, 1888; George H. Umstead to id., November 26, 1888; J, H. Gettinger to id., December 22, 1888; John Bassel to id., December 27, 1888; W. L. Laidley, to id., December 27, 1888; Fleming MSS; Atkinson and Gibbons, op, cit., p. 438.

130. Monroe County Watchman, November 22, 1888; The Sentinel, November 3, and December 1, 1888; The (Weekly) State Journal, November 15, 1888; Wheeling Register, November 15, 16, 19, 22, 26, 27, and December 27, 1888; Joseph Sprigg to Fleming, November 14 and 21, 1888; Henry S. Walker to id., November 16, 1888; T. S. Riley to id., November 19, 1888; R. F. Kidd to id., November 21, 1888; Nathan Banks to id., November 22, 1888; W. L. Wilson to id., November 22, 1888; J. M. Hauser to id., November 30, 18881 H. G. Hanigan to id., December 8, 1888, Fleming MSS.

131. MacCorkle, op, cit., p. 438; B. H. Brown to Fleming, November 12, 1888; John R. Donahoo to id., November 16, 1888, Fleming MSS.

132. MacCorkle, op. cit., p. 438; Fleming to Fleming, November 23, 1888, Fleming MSS.

133. Wheeling Register, November 16, 1888; Republican newspapers.

134. Joseph Sprigg to Fleming, November 21, 1888, Fleming MSS.

135. Code of 1887, Chap. III, Sec. 21, pp. 67-68.

136. Various newspapers throughout the state.

137. Henry S. Walker to Fleming, November 16, 1888; W. E. Chilton to id., November 19, 1888; J. S. St. Clair to id., November 20, 1888; T. S. Riley to id., November 24, 1888; Robert White to id., November 24, 1888; Qeorge H. Umstead to id., November 26, 1888; Fleming MSS.

138. MacCorkle, op. cit., p. 438.

139. The (Weekly) State Journal, November 15 and 22, 1888; Wheeling Register, November 16, 29, 1888.

140. MacCorkle, op. cit., p. 438.

141. Wheeling Register, November 16, 1888.

142. West Virginia Constitution of 1872 (Hereafter referred to as Constitution of 1872), Art. VII, Sec. 3; Code of 1887, Chap. III, Secs. 21, pp. 57-58, 22, pp. 58-59, and 23, p. 59.

143. Wheeling Register, November 15, 16, 17, 29, and 30, 1888.

144. Monroe County Watchman, November 22, 1888; The (Weekly) State Journal Supplement, November 29, 1888; Wheeling Register, November 20, 28, December 7, 14, 1888; A republished article, nd., written by John E. Kenna, which originally appeared in the National Democrat and which was found in A. B. Fleming's Scrapbook; Callahan, op. cit., pp. 465-466.

145. The (Weekly) State Journal, November 29, and December 6, 1888; Wheeling Register, November 16, 29, December 14, 17, 1888.

146. The (Weekly) State Journal, Supplement, November 29, 1888.

147. Wheeling Register, November 21, 1888.

148. Ibid.; T. S. Riley to Fleming, November 20, 1888; Charles J. Faulkner to id., November 24, 1888, Fleming MSS.

149. The Sentinel, December 8, 1888; Wheeling Register, December 1, 1888.

150. The (Weekly) State Journal, November 22, 1888; Democratic broadside of T S. Riley's address, Fleming MSS; Biographical and Portrait Cyclopedia, Sec. on "Marion County," p. 2.

151. E. E. Higgs to Fleming, November 30, December 8, 27, 1888; William A. Dent to id., December 8, 1888; H.B. Hanigan to id., December 8, 1888; W. E. Corder to id., December 18, 1888: J. H. Robinson to id., December 18, 1888; William Hood to id., December 25, 1888; A. Hood to id., January 30, 1889; T. G. Brady to id., March 28, 1889; J. D. Alderson to id., April 23, 1889; D. C. Casto to id., April 25, 26, 1889; P. E. Canfield to id., May 13, 1889; Fleming MSS.

152. Wheeling Register, November 21, 1888.

153. Interview with Fleming's son, A. Brooks Fleming, Jr., July 21, 1941.

154. Interview with Zachery W. Morgan, husband of the late Margaret E. Morgan (nee Fleming), the latter a kinswoman of Fleming, July 7, 1941.

155. Wheeling Register, December 27, 1888.

156. Alfred Caldwell to Fleming, December 5, 1888; Fleming MSS.

157. Wheeling Register, November 23, 1888.

158. The (Weekly) State Journal, November 15, 29,1888.

159. Ibid., November 29, 1888.

160. Wheeling Register, November 23, 1888.

161. Ibid., November 23, 1888; Code of 1887, Chap. III, Sec. 21, pp. 57-58.

162. Wheeling Register, November 23, 1888.

163. Code of 1881, Chap. III, Sec. 8, p. 53.

164. Vol. 31, Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. (These and other Reports, hereafter referred to as W. Va.) p. 611, Fleming v. Commissioners. Decided November 28, 1888.

165. Ibid., p. 612.

166. Ibid., p. 614; Code of 1881, Chap. III, Secs. 8, p. 53, and 21, pp. 57-58.

167. 31 W. Va., p. 620.

168. Ibid., p. 619.

169. Ibid., p. 620.

170. Ibid., p. 618.

171. Ibid., p. 620.

172. Ibid., p. 618.

173. Ibid., p. 620.

174. Ibid., p. 619.

175. APPENDIX, TABLE III, See the total and Kanawha returns of each candidate.

176. 31 W. Va., pp. 633-649, Alderson v. Commissioners, Decided December 5, 1888.

177. 32 W. Va., p. 455, Alderson v. Commissioners, Decided June 23, 1889; p. 641, Alderson v. Commissioners, Decided June 28, 1889.

178. Ibid., pp. 455, 641. Probably Lewisburg and Coalburg precincts; pp. 638-639, Fleming v. Commissioners, Decided June 28, 1889.

179. Ibid., p. 455, In Alderson v. Commissioners (June 23, 1889), Alderson stated the number 4,468 for McGinnis and 3,122 for himself; p. 641, In Alderson v. Commissioners (June 28, 1889), he stated 4,660 for McGinnis and 3,325 for himself.

180. Ibid., 31 W. Va., p. 635.

181. Ibid., pp. 635-636.

182. Ibid., pp. 640-641.

183. Ibid., p. 646; Wheeling Register, December 2, 1888.

184. 31 W. Va., pp. 611-612, Fleming v. Commissioners (November 28, 1888) gives two commissioners improperly sworn. The (Parkersburg Weekly) State Journal, December 13, 1888, reports one commissioner improperly sworn.

185. The (Weekly) State Journal, December 13, 1888; Wheeling Register, December 7, 1888.

186. 31 W. Va., pp. 608-620, Fleming v. Commissioners (November 28, 1888.)

187. The (Weekly) State Journal, December 13, 1888.

188. Wheeling Sunday Register, December 9, 1888.

189. The (Weekly) State Journal, December 13, 1888.

190. Wheeling Register, December 7, 1888,

191. 32 W. Va., p. 455, Alderson v. Commissioners (June 23, 1889.)

192. Ibid., p. 455; pp. 638-639, Fleming v. Commissioners (June 28, 1889).

193. Ibid., pp. 638-639; House Journal, 1889, Fleming's notice of contest, p. 84.

194. 32 W. Va., pp. 455, 461, Alderson v. Commissioners (June 23, 1889).

195. Ibid., p. 455; pp. 638-639, Fleming v. Commissioners (June 28, 1889).

196. Ibid., p. 639; Wheeling Register, December 17, 1888.

197. 32 W. Va., p. 456, Alderson v. Commissioners (June 23, 1889); Wheeling Register, December 17, 1888.

198. 31 W. Va., p. 648; The (Weekly) State Journal, December 20, 1888.

199. 32 W. Va., p. 642, Alderson v. Commissioners, Decided June 28, 1889; Wheeling Register, December 17, 1888.

200. 32 W. Va., pp. 642-643; The (Weekly) State Journal, December 20, 1888; Wheeling Register, December 17, 1888.

201. 32 W. Va., p. 3, Fleming v. Guthrie, Decided January 12, 1889.

202. Ibid., p. 643; Wheeling Register, December 19, 1888.

203. 32 W. Va., p. 643.

204. Ibid., pp. 640-641, Alderson v. Commissioners (June 28, 1889).

205. Ibid., p. 456, Alderson v. Commissioners (June 23, 1889).

206. Ibid., p. 454.

207. Ibid.

208. Ibid., 463.

209. Ibid., 639, Fleming v. Commissioners, Decided June 28, 1889,

210. Ibid., p. 637.

211. Wheeling Register, November 26, 1888.

212. Preston County Journal, January 10, 1889.

213. The (Weekly) State Journal, December 27, 1888; Wheeling Register, December 27, 1888.

214. Code of 1887, Chap. VI, Sec. 13, pp. 72-73.

215. House Journal, 1889, p. 99; The Sentinel, January 5, 1889; APPENDIX. Table III.

216. Preston County Journal, January 10, 1889; Wheeling Register, January 3, 1889.

217. House Journal, 1889, p. 93.

218. Preston County Journal, January 10, 1889.

219. Wheeling Register, January 3, 1889.

220. Preston County Journal, January 10, 1889; Wheeling Register, January 7, 1889,

221. House Journal, 1889, p. 308; APPENDIX, Table III.

222. Ibid., pp. 158-307.

223. Wheeling Intelligencer, August 2, 1889.

224. Preston County Journal, January 10, 1889.

225. J. M. Hauser to Fleming, November 30, 1888; J. W. St. Clair to Samuel Woods, December 11, 1888; Robert W. Monroe to Fleming, December 17, 1888; George W. Fleming to id., December 25, 1888; A. L. Taylor to id., January 12, 1889, Fleming MSS.

226. Preston County Journal, January 3, 1889; Wheeling Register, January 6, 1889.

227. Wheeling Register, January 4, 1889.

228. Ibid., January 5, 1889.

229. Ibid., January 6, 7, 1889.

230. Ibid., January 6, 8, 1888.

231. House Journal, 1889, p. 7.

232. Constitution of 1872, Art. VII, Sec. 3; Code of 1887, Chap. III, Sec. 23, p. 59.

233. 32 W. Va., p. 3, Fleming v. Guthrie, Decided January 12, 1889; pp. 642-643, Alderson v. Commissioners, Decided June 28, 1889.

234. The Preston County Journal, January 10, 1889.

235. 32 W. Va., p. 3.

236. Ibid., p. 639, Fleming v. Commissioners, (June 28, 1889).

237. Ibid., p. 3.

238. Ibid., p. 2.

239. Constitution of 1872, Art. VII, Sec. 3; Code of 1887, Chap. III, Sec. 23, p. 59.

240. 32 W. Va., p. 2, Fleming v. Guthrie (January 12, 1889).

241. Ibid., p. 2.

242. Ibid., p. 3.

243. Ibid., p. 1.

244. Ibid., pp. 3-4.

245. Ibid., pp. 4-5.

246. Ibid., p. 5.

247. Ibid., pp. 6-6.

248. Ibid., pp. 1, 6: The Preston County Journal, January 17, 1889.

249. House Journal, 1889, p. 98; Journal of the Senate of West Virginia. 1889. (Each Senate Journal hereafter referred to as Senate Journal, followed by the proper time reference), p. 97.

250. House Journal, 1889, p. 99.

251. Ibid., p. 100.

252. Ibid.

253. Ibid., pp. 379-380.

254. West Virginia Constitution of 1862 (Hereafter referred to as Constitution of l862), Art. III, Sec. 12.

255. The Code of West Virginia Comprising Legislation to the Year 1870, with an Appendix, Containing Legislation of that Year (This work, hereafter referred to as Code of 1870), Wheeling, West Virginia, John Frew, Public Printer (1868), Chap. III, Secs. 22, pp. 58-59, 26, p. 49, and 44, p. 55, relate to the compulsory registration of voters and provide a Board of Registration.
The appellate Jurisdiction of the Board of Registration is shown in Secs. 28, p. 50, 35, pp. 42-53, 38, p. 63, 40, p. 54.
Secs. 27, pp. 49-50, and 47, p. 55, were among other chief statutes, including registrars' duties and requirements, which provided for the registration system.
Sec. 54, p. 56, required all registrars, members of Boards of Registration, and clerks to take specified oaths. Here, Chap. IX, Secs. 1, pp. 76-77, 2, and 5, p. 77 of this Code (1870) and Art. III, Sec. 5 of the Constitution of 1862 are worthy of notice.

256. Callahan, op. cit., Special Article: George E. Price, "Political Development," p. 454; Code of 1870, Chap. XLV, Sec. 32, p. 299, Chap. CVI, Secs. 26, p. 561, 27, pp. 561-562, 28, p. 562, 29, pp. 562-563, and 30, p. 563, Chap. CXIX, Sec. 3, pp. 589-590, and Chap. CXXXVI, Secs. 10, pp. 645-646, 11, 12, and 13, p. 646.

257. Callahan, op. cit., p. 453; Code of 1870, Chap. III, Sec. 36, pp. 52-53; Constitution of 1862, Art. III, Sec. 1. Sec. 27, pp. 49-50, of the above Chap. III, contains the oath which a registrar could require of an applicant for registration.

258. Callahan, op. cit., p. 458.

259. Ibid., pp. 167, 455-458; Ambler, op. cit., pp. 436-437.

260. Callahan, op. cit., pp. 167, 456.

261. Ambler, op. cit., pp. 435-436; Callahan, op. cit., p. 167,

262. Ambler, op. cit., p. 436; Callahan, op. cit., pp. 167, 456; Compare Flick's idea, which became Art. IV, Sec. 1, of the Constitution of 1872, with Art. III, Sec. 1, of the Constitution of 1862.

263. Callahan, op. cit., pp. 172, 457-458; Ambler, op. cit., pp. 436-437, 439-440; Constitution of 1872, Art. III, Secs. 11, and 12, Art. IV, Secs. 1 and 12, Art. VI, Sec. 43, and Art. VIII, Sec. 20.

264. Ambler, op. cit., p. 461.

265. Constitution of I872, Art. Ill, Sec. 11, Art. VI, Sec. 43, and Art. IV, Sec. 12.

266. House Journal, 1889, p. 101; Senate Journal, 1889, p. 98.

267. The Preston County Journal, January 10, 1889.

268. Ibid., January 17, 1889.

269. Senate Journal, Extra Session, 1890, pp. 19-20; House Journal, Extra Session, 1890, pp. 18-19; Each Journal of the Extra Session hereafter respectively referred to as Senate Journal, 1890, and House Journal, 1890.

270. Ambler, op. cit., p. 462.

271. MacCorkle, op. cit., p. 440.

272. The Sentinel, February 2, 1889.

273. Ibid., January 12, 19, 1889.

274. Wheeling Register, November 19, 20, 28, 1888; January 7, 1889.

275. The Preston County Journal, January 17, 1889.

276. The Sentinel, January 19, 1889.

277. Ibid., January 18, 1889; The Preston County Journal, January 24, 1889.

278. House Journal, 1889, pp. 9-10.

279. Ibid., pp. 318-319.

280. Ibid., pp. 7, 10, 106, and elsewhere; The Preston County Journal, January 17, 1889.

281. House Journal, 1889, pp. 112-113.

282. Ibid., pp. 108-113, 114, 115, and elsewhere.

283. Ibid., p. 581; Senate Journal, 1888, p. 432.

284. Wheeling Register, November 19, 20, 1888.

285. Constitution of 1872, Art. VII, Sec. 16; The Sentinel, January 26, 1888.

286. Wheeling Register, December 28, 1888; January 9, 1889.

287. The Preston County Journal, January 24, 1889.

288. The Sentinel, January 19, 1889; The Preston County Journal, January 24, 1889.

289. The Sentinel, January 26, 1889.

290. Ibid., January 19, February 1, 2, 1889.

291. House Journal, 1889, pp. 318-319.

292. Ibid., pp. 322-325; The Sentinel, February 9, 1889.

293. Preston County Journal, February 7, 21, 1889; The Sentinel, January 26, 1889.

294. Constitution of 1872, Art. VII, Sec. 3.

295. House Journal, 1889, pp. 47-93, 183-308.

296. Constitution of 1872, Art. VII, Sec. 3.

297. The Preston County Journal, January 31, 1889; The Sentinel, February 9, 1889.

298. The Preston County Journal, January 31, 1889; The Sentinel, February 9, 1889.

299. The Preston County Journal, January 17, 1889.

300. House Journal, 1889, pp. 152-153.

301. Ibid., pp. 319, 320, 321; The Preston County Journal, February 7, 21, 1889.

302. House Journal, 1889, p. 321: The Preston County Journal, February 7, 1889.

303. Ibid., February 7, 1889.

304. House Journal, 1889, pp. 322, 325; The Preston County Journal, February 7, 1889.

305. House Journal, 1889, p. 325.

306. The Preston County Journal, February 7, 1889; The Sentinel, February 9, 1889.

307. House Journal 1889, pp. 328, 331; The Preston County Journal, February 7, 1889.

308. House Journal, 1889, p. 334.

309. Ibid., p, 341: The Preston County Journal, February 7, 1889.

310. House Journal, 1889, p. 345; The Preston County Journal, February 7, 1889,

311. House Journal, 1889, pp. 346-346, 347.

312. Ibid., pp. 347, 351-352.

313. Ibid., pp. 352-353.

314. Ibid., pp. 359-362.

315. The Preston County Journal, February 14, 1889.

316. House Journal, 1889, pp. 362, 382.

317. Ibid., p. 382; The Preston County Journal, February 14, 21, 1889.

318. House Journal, 1889, pp. 386-387.

319. Ibid., pp. 11-22, 23-30, 32-38, 42-46, and 96-97; The Preston County Journal, January 24, 1889; The Sentinel, January 19, 1889.

320. The Preston County Journal, January 24, 1889.

321. House Journal, 1889, pp. 392, 893, 396, 426-428.

322. Ibid., pp. 148, 585-606.

323. Ibid., pp. 47-93, 184-308.

324. Ibid., pp. 613-614, 630.

325. Atkinson and Gibbens, op. cit., p. 226.

326. House Journal, 1889, pp. 557-558.

327. Ibid., pp. 560-561: The Sentinel, February 23, 1889.

Read Part II