Fraud in Walla Walla City's First Election?

In January 1862 the Washington Territorial Legislature approved the incorporation of Walla Walla City. The legislature appointed the first city officers and council but stipulated that an election was to be held on April 1st. When this occurred many of the men listed on the "Citizen's Ticket" won the position they sought. But was this first election tainted by fraud? The editors at the Washington Statesman certainly believed so.
(The above image is an advertisement that ran in the Washington Statesman in March prior to the election. Image is courtesy of the Washington Secretary of State's office.)

Council Proceedings

City Council Chamber, }
Walla Walla, April 4th, 1862 }

A special meeting of the Council was held this day order of the President.

On motion, the Board proceeded to canvas the returns of the municipal election, held on the 1st inst.

The report of the judges of election having been read, indicated the following result:

Whole number of votes cast, 422

For Mayor– E.B. Whitman received 416 votes.

For Recorder – W.P. Horton received 239 votes.
For Recorder – W.W. DeLacy received 183 votes.

For Councilmen – I.T. Reese received 415 votes.
For Councilmen – J.F. Abbott received 410 votes.
For Councilmen – R. Jacobs received 413 votes.
For Councilmen – B.F. Stone received 412 votes.
For Councilmen – B. Sheideman received 400 votes.

For Marshal– Geo. H. Porter received 269 votes.
For Marshal – A. Seitel received 136 votes.
For Marshal – A.J. Miner received 17 votes.

For Treasurer – E.E. Kelly received 219 votes.
For Treasurer – D.S. Baker received 200 votes.

For Assessor – L.W. Greenwell received 413 votes.

For Surveyor – A.J. Chapman received 305 votes.
For Surveyor – W.W. Johnson received 110 votes.

On motion, the Council declared the several persons having a plurality of the vote cast, in accordance with the returns before them, as being duly elected, and instructed the clerk to notify them accordingly.

Whereupon notices and commissions were issued to E.B. Whitman for Mayor; I.T. Reese, J.F. Abbott, R. Jacobs, B.F. Stone and B. Sheideman for Councilmen; W.P. Horton for Recorder; G.H. Porter for Marshal; E.E. Kelley for Treasurer; L.W. Greenwell for Assessor; A.I. Chapman for Surveyor.

On motion, the Council adjourned at the call of the President.

S.F. Ledyard, Clerk.

April 10th, 1862

Council met agreeable to call of the President.

In compliance to notice the newly elected Council appeared, together with the Mayor elect, and were qualified in presence of the old Council.

On motion, the Council appointed, as corporators by the Legislature adjourned “sine die.”
The Council elect having been called to order Messrs. Reese, Stone, Jacobs and Sheideman appeared and took their seats: absent, Mr. Abbott.

On motion, B.F. Stone was elected President of the Council.

At the instance of several members of the Council an adjournment was had to meet to-morrow [sic], April 11th, at 2 o’clock P.M. to receive the inaugural address of the Mayor.

S.F. Ledyard, Clerk.

(The above posting is essentially the same as when it was published in the April 12, 1862 issue of the Washington Statesman. Formatting requirements for this blog are the reason for the alterations.)
Read more!

The Riot at the Theater

In April 1862 a riot at the theater in Walla Walla disrupted the town, as did the following demonstration of the soldiers. What follows is an article published in the Washington Statesman newspaper from April 19, 1862. A link for the paper is listed at the bottom.

The Riot at the Theater
We publish to-day [sic] an interesting correspondence between Mayor Whitman and Lt. Col. Lee, growing out of the recent unfortunate affray at the theater, and the conduct of some of the soldiery since that event. Every peaceable citizen hoped and expected that the disgraceful proceedings of that evening would close the drama; and it is to be deeply regretted that they did not, inasmuch as subsequent transactions have exhibited a most deplorable disregard of law and order, if not a fixed and settled enmity between residents of the city and the soldiers quartered at the garrison.
On the part of the citizens who were engaged in the affray, notwithstanding the fact that officers of the law had been suffered to be stricken down and their authority contemned [sic] and boldly set at defiance, we are satisfied they cherished no disposition to aggravate the difficulty either by word or deed. Remaining within the limits of the city, they have peaceably and quietly pursued their accustomed business. Not so with the soldiers. Cherishing unjustifiably an excited and hostile dispositions, they imitated the unwarrantable conduct of their fellows on the night in question, by parading our streets with an armed force, thus exhibiting a total and wanton disregard for the law and civil authorities. The mildest terms that can be applied to this procedure must characterize it as a high-handed outrage upon the rights of the people of this city, and a gross insult to the dignity and authority of their laws. It is true, the soldiery represented themselves, through their officers, as having the authority of Col. Lee, and by virtue of his authority demanded the yielding up of a private citizen. This, it will be seen, is denied by the Colonel; and though circumstances and report, both by citizens and soldiers, may contradict him, we have not right in this matter to question his veracity. It is true that the men came here fully armed and equipped, prepared for any emergency that their presence or conduct might have provoked, and these arms must have been issued to them by somebody. More than one of the soldiers have stated that they were issued by the Quartermaster’s sergeant, and have stated at the same time that they supposed their belligerent visit to our town was entirely in regular form and order. Still they may have been laboring under a wrong impression, it having been made to appear to many of them that this was the case by the more designing ones among them, in order to get them enlisted in the crusade. Taking it for granted, then, that the men conceived and executed this high-handed infraction of our rights, what a magnificent specimen of command the admission exhibits, and how “ample” the “power” of the commanding officer to punish the offenders! Under these circumstances, it becomes us to inquire what security we may have in the future against a like lawless and unprovoked invasion.
There is one clause in the letter of Col. Lee to the Mayor which deserves special attention, inasmuch as the allegations therein contained are entirely false, and calculated to produce a wrong impression upon the public mind. It is the one which pronounces the accidental killing of a soldier at the theater a “wanton and most likely premeditated murder” of one of the most peaceable solders in his command; and this flimsy pretense is offered in palliation of the subsequent lawless conduct of his soldiers. All who were present on the evening of the affray know that this is an entire misrepresentation of its character; and that the idea of a premeditated murder [emphasis in original] resulting from the occasion in question – beginning and ending in a moment – is too simple and ridiculous to deserve comment, much less to be believed. The simple truth is that on the might in question one of the soldiers became a source of annoyance to the audience, and defied the officer’s authority upon being told to cease his disturbance. The office attempted to remove him from the house, which was violently resisted by several of the soldiers; whereupon he called for assistance. After this a general fight ensued, in which both soldiers and citizens participated. It was one of those unfortunate occurrences which sometimes arise upon the spur of the moment, and one which certainly cannot be healed by aggravation from either side. We do not believe that a single citizen engaged in the affray who was not called upon by an officer. We infer that the object of the solders was to prevent the ejectment [sic] of their comrade, and the eagerness manifested on their part showed a determination to this end. On the part of the citizens, we cannot but suppose that they acted in good faith in their efforts to suppress the riot and aid the officers in the discharge of their duty.
The Colonel talks flippantly about a certain “notorious criminal,” and professes great surprise that “the citizens of this city did not take interest enough in the matter to have him arrested.” Why pitch upon this particular man and attempt to arrest him without due process of complaint nor form the law? If he should be arrested by mob law, why not all the others who participated, soldiers and citizens? They certainly were not less to blame. Again, we assume that the officers on that occasion were acting within the legitimate province of their duty in quelling the rot and restoring order. If so, citizens who participated to secure the same end, having been called by the officers, were just as much warranted in their action. Who then, had the officers a right to arrest on the spot, without the process of complaint and issuance of papers? Most conclusively those who resisted their authority. Under our laws there are proper forms of investigation. We have a grand jury, and besides, every man has a right to enter a complaint against an offender and have him brought to justice. The offices are supposed to proceed according to law, and we are not aware of any papers having as yet been placed in their hands for the arrest of anybody concerned in the affair.
Link to article

Read more!