Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1830-03-29

beng eal:Sssp psog addressing the people
In Communicate, os npiself or his principles OF nis
lcanacf i ,voSi be si,voght act Of madness. e,
4 In fan,.~xy it " conducted otherwise, undttno
!" Mas much 10 he preferred; tho candidates
there s,dfessed the people before the election QUE
ncyerto the h,ndrapcs OF The poll;
lie said admitting, Tor the sake OF inc u
tbst the Mayor of Norflk had the right TO adcoarn
oyer the poll vet i'm his opinion the contingency hau not
nsi,pened, authorxing the adjournncnt over oil tue
ec, ~, the first day; the Allegation U.s. hat the c.
Tie onunerous 10 of a rS ,ssed to this
fact and that there sss several electors present Just
..o soi,'s aowp OF VI, sun, who had not voted.
- IS proved on All hands INT the day fair IL Is
isputaby proved that thereere scycraliutervuls OF
Ifon five, ten and fccn mnutesayhen no votes were
gven and that notwithstanding ,h> unusual delay in
opening the pol, all the legal voters hsrht have been
poiled1n one day.-Now what are the kauisitlons of
The. statutes That "If the electors WHO NppEan be
$50 numerous that they cannot all be folleo> before
'sun-sestmg, then the proceeding on the polf> may
sand shall be adjourned &c. "
The case OF Bassett and Baylor, decided by this
House, shows that the power adjourn over Is
discretionary ono, but that tho facts authorizing
adjournment must appear TO exist aud that if an ad-
lournmcnt OF the poll Is made without being warren
tod BY the state of facts tins House will riudge the
decision OF the Sheriff. 1t did rejudge his decision
IN the case referred and decided that the votes
given on the second aud third days nultes be-
cause the contingency had not happened, authorizing
the ADJOURNMENT of the poll.
He said 10 the present case it did not appear when
the electors had come TO the poll; they may have
presented themselves for the first time just at set
ting, for the express purpose OF procuring the adj
Journment. He was OF opinion that the electors
were bound to use reasonable diligence TO get in
their on the first day, and it they chose 10 alb
sent themselves when their votes could be taken,
they had no right require an adjournment of the
poll, because they had neglected 10 perform their
duties. If it should he considered good reason for
adJoarning the poll, that electors presented them
selves for the FIRST time the moment the was
setting, then adournmenis might be unnecessarily
ffaudulcntl procured, and the intention OF the aci
perverted. lie said no such exposition of the act
ought To be made, would open door to fraud;
1t ought to appear airmatively and distinctly that
the electors who could not be polled, had entitled
themselves to an adjournment, by being present a
reasonable time before sunsettmg,- and who could
not be poedfo the press OF voters. Dad such facts
appear? There was no evidence showing when the
electors who were pres mt at the setting of the sun
cane TO the poll. Mt one oftho,n had been exam
med to make out the necessary facts: for aug that
appeared, ii was nsre pFctence that the unpolled
electors were either numerous, or had been IN at
tendance reasonable time before sunsctting. He
conended that the sitting member was entitled TO
retain his scat unless the peiioner cxl,i1ted facts
showing aiirrlstivey the occurrence OF eveat
juslfying an ADJOURNMENT of the poll, and this had
not been done. lie said that in his decided opinion,
the Mayor OF Norfolk had authority to adjourn
The poll; and fhe had that the contingency had not
happened which justified his doing That on all
questions regarding elections, the House acted ju-
dlc!aIly, and it of the utmost Importance that
our decisions, which are To serve as preos-lcnts,
should be founded principles that will boar
animation.