New Hampshire Statesman

THE STATESMAN.
CONCORD:
MONDAY, MAY 23, 1825.

Votes for Members to Congress.

The Governor and Council, at their late session in this town, sorted and counted the votes for Members to Congress. The following is the result:—

To fill the vacancy in the November election.
J. Healy.
E. Webster, scat.
12,154
9,281
288
Rejected Votes.
3,370
2,381
69
15,524
11,662
357

To supply the place of James Miller.
Titus Brown,
scat.
18,258
71
Rejected Votes,
5,187
216
23,445
927

The votes given in the following towns were rejected on account of being unseasonably returned, not being properly certified by the returning officer, or not being returned at all, viz:—Atkinson, Brentwood, Candia, Chester; Kingston: Sandown, Barnsted, Centre-Harbor, Chatham. Eaton, Effingham, Sanbornton, Sandwich. Strafford, Wilmot, Amherst, Hancock, Litchfield, Lyndeborough, Mason, Sharon, Wilton, Acworth, Dublin, Grantham, Marlborough, Plainfield, Springfield, Stoddard, Unity, Bethlehem, Coventry, Grafton, Franconia, Hanover, Holderness. Lisbon, Littleton, New-Chester, Orange, Orford, Peeling, Rumney Warren, Wentworth. Lancaster, Milan, Northumberland, Piercy. Stewartstown, Stratford, Rye, Burton, Maubury, Coventry and Randolph.

It appears by the above statement that the votes given in fifty-six towns have been rejected!! more than one quarter of the votes thrown at the late election in the State. It is time, high time, that the law was put in force respecting the returns of votes, and all delinquents prosecuted, without favor or affection. The facilities of returning votes are so great, and the law respecting the proper certificate of votes, so clear, that any neglect or mistake in either case, is inexcusable. At any rate, it is better that an officer who accepts an office he cannot or will not, perform, should suffer the penalty of the law for his malpractice, than that towns should thus be disfranchised by wholesale.

Mr. Hill, says in the last Patriot, the federal candidate, Mr. Peirce, in No. 5. "by a major vote of one!" is chosen. The facts are that Mr. Peirce has four more votes than all the opposing candidates; and that he has been an undeviating republican from the beginning. The manner of Mr. Hill's attack upon Mr. Peirce is very pitiful. He dares not come forward like a man, and prefer his charges, (if any he has,) against him; but chooses to proceed by insinuations and innuendoes. That Mr. Hill is offended at some particular acts of Mr. Peirce, there can be no doubt: Such as, consenting to be Chairman of the meeting of the Legislature, which nominated Mr. Adams; and above all, toasting that eminent statesman at a public dinner, and in his presence! There is one cause of offence, if possible, more provoking to Mr. Hill than any we have mentioned. It is Mr. Peirce's independence. He does not choose to submit to the dictation of the Patriot, or to play second fiddle to Mr. Hill.