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

IN.
- - o., che cosfssisd Election f;v,n Vsrf,kt y -
Mr., SP I'm GER. zoe N. Yosk, rose and said
11,ata most delicate dizzy had devolv,d ON IN,
,emen should With Us IL he hih du,iss q
nv b ;'s sS,,"ct aad seat here
the favor ofthe House, whilst, Ohio Other ~;
the sitting member (Nr. Newtoii3 lad grown old in
the public service aud universally esteemed aud
respected. In determining the rights Of these gem
lene,. tho house would must discard all other con-
sideraons than thcse Of right and Justice. lthaving
been distinctly admitted by the Chairman OF the COM
iittee on Elections tair Aston that air, Newton,
tain bis scat fthe Mayor of Norfolk had right to
hold the election in that borough but one day, the
questions to be decided were principally legal ones,
,oen,nr on the construction OF certain statutes OF
Virginia. lie said II would DO rash and arrogant in
him venture TO give hts opinion on those statutes,
had thcy received construction by The constituted
a,,orites IL that State, this was not Pretended i,
xai they were now for tho FIRST time to receive
constructiof independent OF the usagcs under them
lie SAID under these circumstances, aud inasmuch
as the principles OF construction were OF universal
application, whether to law of New York of
Virginia he felt no embarrassment the subjeci.
aud he could no farther defer 10 lawyer of VIZ
.,inia on this question: than TO a~lawyer from any
ptior sectiou.of the Union. le SAID, from all the
enacsments it was evident that the legislature of
Virginia intended that tie elections throughout the
State shoud-bc holden but one day: TINS undoubted-
ly proceeded from the consideration that Proiracted
elections causedoss of time the people, and much
expense, and probably unnecessary agitation. But
the legislature ioresaw that there might be causes
which would prevent tho electors from v1Mfthcr
votes, and expressing their choice of representa-
tycs, aud they wisely PROVIDED against such casual
ties. st-s.i
The statute of Virginia arranging the Counties
into districts for the choice of representatives to
Congress enacts at the ike proceedings shall be had
for conducting, continuing, and closing the poll IL
each county OF district, as is prescribed by law
in the election OF members to TIC General AS
sembly."sfs
IT,, fifteenth section of the state of the e7in
Of January 1873, provides that ''lf the electors
who appear, be So humorous that they cannot oil
be poled before the sun setiing or It by rain or
rises OF water courses, many oil the electors may
have been hlndered from attending, the sheriff,
under Sheriff, may and shall, by request OF any
one more of the candIdaies, or eif agents, al
jeurn the proceeding en- tie poll until the next day.,
&c.
The queston then is, whether, upon any kno wn
and established rules of constructions the power OF
adjourning over the poll beyond one day, thus given
to Sheriffs can extend the Mayors OF cities, who
by law are TO preside at the elections, WITHIN their
respective corporations Before this question can be
answered satisfactorily, facts must be stated
The precise PROVISION contained In the 18th section
ofthe act OF 1918, authorizing Sheritfs, and under
Sheriff5 to adjourn the poll. and Tor The
causes; was contained IN an act oil Virginia of 785,
aud that power never has been expressly given
Mayors OF cities. The act OF 1873 professes TO be
a revision of all former laws that subject. IL
appears To be penned with great ease and accuracy
In various parts of the act, Mayors of cities
toned, and their duties au0 powers are specifically
pointed out. In the SIX eehtii section immediately
following the one under consideration, special provI
sion smade IN the Mayor OF any city or borough
isunabie attend conduct tie elections that the
Recorder, and If he be unable, the senior Alderman
capable of attending, shall attend aud conduct the
election; in short, some half dozen instances the
Mayors of cities recognized in the act oil 1870.
1t incredible, from all those CONSCIENTIOUS that the
legislature should have omitted the words 'or May
crs in the fifteenth section from inadsertence mis-
take.
There are many reasons why the power of ADJOURN
Ing the poll given to- Sherfis, should have been
denied to Mayors cities: the cities small and IL
is in proof in the case, without cont ADDICTION, that
electors living in the extreme parts of Norfolk, could
nten or fifteen minutes walk TO the court-house.--I
Rains which IN counties would prevent electors from
riding twenty thirty miles to come to thJ court
house, would IN small cities have influence to pre-
vent tho electors from taking short waikiki the
counties the swelling OF the waer-courses carrying
off the BRIDGES rendering rvers untordabe, might
hinder and prevent many electors from voting, which
causes could exist IN cities. IL is III proof with
out contra 1iction that the election IN the city of
Norfolk never has before been adjourned OVER; and
ye he We no prouf that it has been done IN any
incornorated city or borough in that Commonwealth.
It clearly proved that but for tue delay IN opening
the poll at this cry election, all the legal votes might
have been polled III one day. The question then re-
turns whether the significant words ''or Mayors can
be interpoated, and the powers given to Sherfs TO
adjourn the poll, be extended to Mayors of Cities
If the case required it, and the powers of the She
riffs aad Mayors of cities the same, and If the
circumstances of the counties and cities subsan
tally similar; If the same necessity existed for
tending the snme powers TO the Mayors given
70 Sheriff. Of counties to adjourn over, then he adj
nitted that the 18th section might be construed to
extend to Mayors. He said, the intention Of tho
Legislature to be regarded in tile construction Of
an act. All It's paris were TO be colated, and the
spirit and intent of the enactment sought for, and
when ascertaned applied 10 ITS construction. The
case stated 10y the gentleman from Virginia, Mr..
Smyth,l that law relation to executors had been
decided TO apply administrators, thoughnot named
was an illustration OF the principle. The only differ
cncc between them beng IN the origin of their pow
ers an executor deriving his authority from the
tator the administrator from the law. Ifther pow
ors and duties had been different, would never have
been SO decided Hc said that words were the signs
of IDEAS and they the only means of finding out
the intention Of aw -makers But aw-inakcfs may
mperfectly express Their meaning, and where IL was
manifest that the words OF an enactment failed to
express clearly the ntenioub by The omission Of words
and tho good Of thc thing and the spirit Of the
law required that such omission should DO supplied
becaase Tho thing omitted stood precisely tlcsame
fuo thng then and ou,