Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1811-12-09

trict, and he was accordingly retained as e.
lected.
fh9t of the polls taken for the county Of
w estnioreand, John Taliaferro had 81 votes
and John p. Hungerford $40 votes, and that,
on comparing the poll with the land list of the
year 1910, and taking the list as a test, it APP
pears to the committee that persons who
voted for the former, and l62 persons who
voted Tor the latter gentleman, were not qua
lihcd to vote.
That OF the polls taken for the county of
Richmond, NJ, Taliatcrro had l03 votes and
Mr.. tiungertord $50 votes, and that, ON such
comparison as aforesaid, 10 persons who yot-
ed tor the former, and cS persons who vot-
eel for the latter gentleman, appear not to
have been legally qualified voters
That ofthe polls taken for the county Of
Lancaster Mr.. Taliaferro had l2c votes and
Mr.. Hungerford, 90 Votes, and that-.on such
comparison as aforesaid, 20 persons who yo-
ted for the former gentleman, and 20 persons
who voted for the latter appear hot TO have
been legally qualified voters.
That of the polls taken for the county of
Northumberland Mr.. Taliaferro had '22s
votes and Mr. Hungerford 76votes, and that
on such comparison as aforesaid, SIS persons
who voted for the former gentleman, and I
person who voted for the latter, appear not
to have been legally qualified voters.
That OF the polls taken for the county of
King George, Mr.. Taliafcrro had III votes
and Mr.. Hungerford l25 votes, and that, ON
such comparison rs aforesaid, 38 persons who
voted for the former gentleman, and so per-
Sons who voted for the latter. appear not to
have been legally qualified voters
That of the polls taken for the county of
Stafford, Mr.. TaIiaferro had 159 votes and
MIR. Hungerford 90 votes, and that on such
comparison as aforesaid, 90 persons who vo-
ted for the former gentleman, appear not to
| have been legally qualified voters
The result of such examination and com
pariscn is, that dcductins from both polls, the
persons challenged who do not appear to
have been qualified to vote according to the
land lists of 1910, Mr. Taliaferro has a ma
jority over Mr.. Hungerford of one hundred
and twenty-one votes.
The committee further report, that on the
9TH day of May last, the petitioner gave no.
tice to the sitting member of his intention to
contest the election, on the ground that the
former had majority of the legal and quail
flied votes, and that such notice was accom-.
panied by a list of the persons challenged by
the petitioner, with His objection to them.-
On the 18th of May, the sitting member fur
nished the petitioner with list of the per-
sons challenged by him, setting forth his OBJ
jections against such voters. These lists con-
tain as we'll the names of the persons whom
the committee find not to be on the land lists.
as others who are challenged by the parties
for the want of hefreehold qualification, and
for otliH causes
That on the 9th day Of September last,
the petitioner gave notice in writing, subscri-
bed by him, to The sitting member, that tes-
timony would be taken iii relationt to the pre-
sent controversy, and to be used in the de-
cision of the same, at King George court
house on the 10th, at Westmorcland court
house on the 18TH, and at Richmond court
house on the 22d of October; and that the
petitioner, agreeable to such notice, has ta-
ken sundry dispositions, which are now be
fore the committee; but the sitting mem
Der did not attend such examination, for
reasons stated by him in a protest which he
| caused to be delivered to the petitioner
The committee further state, that they
made the comparison of the polls with the
| land lists at the particular request of the pc
! titioner, and for the purpose ofreducing the
controversy before them as much as possible;
and that they were induced to this course
from adopting as principle, that according
to the laws OF Virginia, the land list of the
| year prior to the election is, in the first IN
| stance, to be received as evidence of all the
freeholders in the county: but this evidence
parties, is only conclusive in the absence of
all other evidence; and they accordingly are
ofopinion, that It is competent for the parties
to shew, by other testimony that persons APP
pearing on the land list are not freeholders.
and thus not entitled to vote, and onthe other
hand that persons not appearing on the land
lists are freeholders and voters
The sitting member, before such exami-
| nation was gone into, asked for time TO take
Testimony, under the conviction that in rea-
sonable period, to be fixed by the committee,
ne would be able, by evidence to be taken.
| to support his challenges and his poll, and he
still requests such time ia be allowed to him !:
| the petitioner, on the other hand, has at all
| times opposed such request, on the ground
that the sitting member has had sufficient
| time, since he was apprised that the election
would be contested, TO procure his testimo-
| ny.
The committee are aware that some in
4 convenience must arise to the petitioner IL
| this contest is laid over for any time. hut
they think the right of suffrage ought not 10
be hazardcd or destroyed on account of anv
individual Inconvenience If there has not
been gross neglect in the sitting member, the
committee conceive that it is due to the cleo
tors of the district WHO poled for him. and
to himself, not to hurry his case TO a decision
without aifording them and him an opportu-
nifty to make good the election if they Can do