The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1811-12-07

,'A'' AAoifSO1ioEU 80 NoteS, ana tnat on sue
comparison as aforesaid, 90 persons who vo-
ted Ter the former gentleman appear net to
nave been legally qualified voters.
nc result OF such examination and com
parison IS, that deducting from both polls,
the persons challenged who do not appear
TO have hccn qualified to vote according 70
the land lists of 1910, Mr.. Taliaferro has
majority over Mr.. Hungerford of 121 votes.
HE committee further report, that on the
9TH day of May last, the petitioner gave no.
ucc to the sitting member of his intc:ltion to
contest the election, on the ground that the
former had a majority of the legal and qua
lined votes, and that such notice was accom-
panied by list of the persons challenged by
che petitioner, with his objections to them
On the 2Sth 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-
tam as well the names of tho persons who the
committee find not to be OH the land lists, as
others who are challenged by the parties for
the want or the freehold qualification, and
lor other causes.
That on the 9th day of Sept. last, the pc
tt!oncr gave notice iii writing, subscribed by
tim, t the sitting member, that testimony
would be taken in relation to the present con-
rroversy, and to he used i'll the decision of the
same, at King George courthouse on the
10Th, at Westmoreland court -house on the
18TH, and at Richmond courthouse on the
ia OF Oct. and that the petitioner, agree
able t. such notice, has taken sundry depo-
Sitions, which are now before the commit
tee but the sitting member did not attend
such examination, for reasons stated by him
IN protest which he caused to be delivered
to the petitioner
The committee further state, that they
made the comparison of the polls with the
and lists at the particular request of the pc
Iitioner, and tor the purpose OF reducing 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 Va. the land list of the year
prior to the election is, in the first instance,
TO be received as evidence of all the freehol-
ders In the county but this evidence thev
conceive, and so it was admitted by the par
ties, is only conclusive in the absence of all
other evidence; and they accordingly are of
opinion, that 1t is competent for the parties
&c show, by other testimony, that persons
appearing on the land list are not freeholders,
and thus not entitled to vote, and OH the 9TH
er hand that persons not appearing on the
land lists are freeholders and voters.
The sitting member, before such examina-
ton was gone into, asked for time to take
testimony, under the conviction that
IN reasonable period, to be fixed by the
committee, he would be able, by evidence to
be taken, to support his challenges and his
poll, and he still requests such time to be al
lowed 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 pro-
cure his testimony
The committee are aware that some in
must arise to the petitioner if
this contest is laid over for any time, but they
think the right Of suffrage ought not to be
hazarded or destroyed on account of any in
dividual mconvenience.-Ifth has not
been gross neglect in the sitting member, the
committee conceive that it is due to the cleo
tors of the district who poIled for him, and to
not to hurry his case to decision
without affording them and him an opportu-
nifty to make good the election if they can do
it.
1t has been already stated, that the petit
toner gave notice of his intention to contest
the election of the sitting member on the 9TH
OF May and this the former contends was
sufficient to put the latter to the task of col
Letting and arranging his proof your com
mittee see, however, that this proceeding
was modelled on the laws and usages of Va.
and according to them it is regarded as a
mere incipient step calling for no proceeding
from the other party. Such notice ON the
heel OF contested election, is an idex to the
feelings OF the person giving it, but not al
ways the proof Of settled determnation.-l
A. the period of the election recedes, & the
diihcuiteS attending canvass become more
apparent, the unsuccessful candidate some-
times abandons his notice and his scrutiny
1t ought not therefore to be required of the
person returned, for such cause alone, to
wade through all the trouble, difficulty * ex
pence of = tedious examination while II 70
mains doubtful whether his opponent will
proceed; 1t is surely in season TO begin to
take defensive testimony when the opposing |
party has commenced the investigation.
The notice given BY the petitioner on the |
9th otScptcn1ber, tor the examinations on !
the iCth, II and I'D of October, the com
mittee nave accordingly regarded as the !
hrst efficient measure towards the SCRUTINY, Z,
and the; are satisfied that ia district com |
posed OF SIX counties, and in a case where |
the votes challenged exceeded four hundred !
1t was not practicable for the sitting mem |
Der to take his testimony Ill season for the I
commencement OF this session. \ notice /
given by him after tie 2yth OF September.
would not have been deemed reasonable tex /
an earlier day than the 10Th Of October. /
nor would it have been allowed IN HIM TO .
call the petitioner from his own exaIn,na-
tons, which were To continue until af.ei. lhe |
22d OF October d: after the I'D OF October, Il |
IS not possible 20 conceive that the sitting |
member could procure his evidence, allow I!