Does anybody know this Manahan family?
Cumberland Alleganian (Cumberland, Maryland)
May 15, 1846
Contested Seat in Maryland Senate
The Frederick Citizen has, for several weeks past, been furnishing its readers with the character of the alleged illegal votes which a majority of the Senate has stricken from the poll of Mr. Quynn. ---
The Citizen of last week contains the case of Elijah Haines, which is given as a beautiful specimen of political morality:---
The first witness (contestant's witness) says that Haines voted at the October election, 1844, but was previously objected to on the score of unar-riv.Witness has seen a record in possession of a sister M.. and according to that record he was not quite 20 a week or two before the October election, 1844; --- There was said to be another records in the hands of John Manahan, now in Ohio.Witness was told that the record he saw was a correct copy of that.Henry Haines, father of E. Haines, was at the polls after 11, voted, and wished to swear that his son was not of age --- Elijah was not by at that time.In the cross examination witness says he does not know of his own knowledge that the record he saw was a copy of the one in the possession of M.. and does not know who copied it.In the fall of 1843 witness enquired of John Manahan if he had the ages of Henry Haines' children, and whether Elijah was of age from the statement?M. answered that he thought he was, he could not be sure, he had not examined it particularly.Under that statement witness was told Elijah's vote was received at the election in 1843.Witness says that in his opinion H. Haines, the father, was duley sober when he saw him at the polls in 1844 --- but that he is given to dissipation.H. Haines and J. Manahan both voted the Whig ticket in 1844.
The second witness, Elijah Porter . (on the part of the sitting member.)Witness set the ages of Henry Haines' children all down; but that book is taken away to the western country.Witness' father died in September 1821; H. Haines had a daughter born on the 5th of the same month, 5th September, 1821.Elijah Haines was born eighteen months after, as witness was told by H. Haines, that father, and others.
The third witness (on the part of sitting member) says that old Mr. Porter the grand father of Elijah Haines, died in September, 1821, and that the sister of H. was born a few weeks before the death of the old man.Witness is the daughter of Elijah Porter, and the cousin of Elijah Haines.
The fourth witness (on the part of sitting member) had a conversation with his brother, John Manahan, in reference to Elijah Haines, age he said he was old enough to vote in 1843.Witness' brother told him that he was in possession of the family record of old Henry Haines, and from that record Elijah was old enough to vote.
The fifth witness (on the part of contestant) is father to Elijah Haines.Witness produced a record which he believed to be a correct statement of the age of his son to wit: "Elijah Haines the son of Henry & Rebecca Haines was born Nov. 2nd 1824" - in answer to cross interrogations, witness says that he did not keep a family record -- had no education to enable him to do it; he knows no note than what they set down of the ages set down in the book produced are right.Thomas Manahan and Elijah Porter made the entries of his children's births, on the original record.The record produced is a copy of the original in the hands of Thomas Manahan now in the west, witness had it drawn before M. left.The copy was made out several years before the last election and the election preceding , and has been in the possession of the witness ever since it was made.Elijah Haines got his vote in 1843 from the statement of Nimrod Norris (the first witness) and nothing was said about it.---Elijah got his vote at the last election, but witness did not think he was old enough.Elijah voted the Whig ticket in 1843.
The sixth witness (on the part of contestant) This witness was the party charged with illegal voting.He voted for Mr. Quynn.Witness cannot say right down what his age is.Before he went to the polls he enquired what his age was, and then told them that from what his father and relations told him that he believed he was one and twenty years old.The old register of his father's children's ages is now in the State of Ohio, taken there by John H. Manahan, first person to witness.It was upon the information of Manahan that witness was of age in 1843, that his vote was then received.At that time Mr. Norris said he was certain of witness' vote, for he (Norris) and Manahan had his age decided by the Judges of election.Mr. Norris left him have a horse, saddle and bridle, and he went to the election and voted in 1843.
The record of age was said to be copied from one in Manahan's possession; but witness does not know of his own knowledge that it was a correct copy; neither does he know who copied it.And yet it is proven by the admission of the first witness himself, and by the fifth and sixth witnesses (all the contestant's own witnesses) that it was upon the statement of the first witness and Manahan in whose hands the original record was, that E. Haines voted in 1843, one year before.
The fifth witness, his father, is proven to be an intemperate man, and he himself says he had no education to enable him to keep a record, and that all he knew is from a pretended copy of the original record in his possession.There is no attempt made by the production of a single witness, to prove that the record produced was a true copy of the original.The old man says the copy was made by his son & son-in-law, Allen Frizzle.Now, in all seriousness we would ask, where was the son & Frizzle?If there was any confidence in the correctness of the copy, why not produce one or the other as witness?Can any body believe if this was a true copy that there would not have been some evidence adduced to prove it?And in the absence of these witnesses, can any credit be given to the paper?
But what say the other witnesses?The second witness made entry on the original record, as proved by himself and Henry Haines, the father; he has not got the book, but proves from family events that M. was of age at the October election 1844.The third witness corroborates the second, and the fourth witness proves from the declaration of his brother, John Manahan, in reference to the age of M. in 1843.
In spite of the entire failure on the part of the contestant to make out his case, and the strong evidence that M. was of age, having voted in 1843, (but then he voted the Whig ticket.)the Senate decided that M. was an illegal voter, and struck his vote from the count of Mr. Quynn.--- Well might the Senate, after this case and others that we have examined, disregard their own decision, that Mr. Ross had received one vote more than Mr. Quynn, and then refuse to give him a seat!