Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-01-08
WEDNESDAY. Jan. 5 n.
TITI

CULPEPER ELECTION.
On motion oil Mr. Brodnax the Report on The ne titon
OF Mr. Gibson was taken up.-Mr. Goodies resolution.
submitted yesterday, being under consideration
MIR; Garland OF Nelson addressed the House at con-
SIDERABLE length The object of this was 10
secure to the House of Delegates, the member who
received the majority Of votes. 1t ared however
.na' ,he Poil OF the sitting Member had been scru
h'zed, while that Of the contesng candidate RENAME
untouched which did not likely to produce a fair
decision On the question to the time in bicb MOTIF
should De gwen It bad been assumed that the Sheriff
was not oouno to make known the result forthwith
ne might retain his knowledge in his Own mind and
keep The parties in ignorance. This would be most
unJus': lie ought rather to give immediat public no
wee OF the result that candidate any other dyi.
S S might have an opportunity to contest If the
oherin was not bound 10 announce the result until
me opening OF the next Court, for weeks after then
Tue Time would have past, and no would have an
opportunity oil contesting Were the return speedIv
announced any citizen could contest, as had been the
case In the Hsnrco election Mr. Garland argued this
point atieng,h, and concluded by sayng that il wa
,ne DUTY OF the House, to decide this and all other
IKE questions in that manner, which would be most
hksiy to produce fair and equitable result.
Mr. watkins moved TO amend the re solution nv In.
rucung the Committee to enquire into he list of
In notice OF MIR. Gibson to The sitting Member dated
Z!th oil October His motion was grounded upon a
wish ~ make The decision of this question depend on
the polls of the parties.
Mr. Anderson OF b. understood that the grounds Of OBJ
Jecuon 10 the votes in the list alluded TO- was not suf
cien 70 setthem asde and that because of that
ciency, The Committee would not @ Examine them II
appeared by The Report OF The Committee that the
ohus prooand must rest the sitting member
yet also, that he could be allowed 10 go into 10
hmoDy in regard 10 those votes on anv sround bu,
those OF the objections made He asked If this was 80,
Mr.. Morris narrated the grounds on which the Com
nttee mad considered the notice Of the 9th October
Irregular Inc voters enumerated in IL, were stated
not to be householders freeholders but IL occur
red 10 the Committee, that they might be
or reVersoners and therefore entitled TO vote The
petoning candidate offered to give evidence that the
were not entitled to vote on any ground hut The
committee DID not 60 into the evidence, because the
ssnony would not be confined to the stated in
me NORGE Ihey would not put the onus probnndi on
ne si'''ng member in regard togrounds which had no.
ueen sa'eo IN the notice They, therefore, allowed
'he sixteen votes 10 remain his poll
Mr. Goode was willing to accept the amednment 1;
time were allowed to take testimony. There was M no
uce 10 ne sitting member; that these votes were moi
leaseholder or reversioners And the House having
yesterday decided that they would not entertain corr
plants unless all the preliminary forms Of law had H.
complied with, the principle ought now to be sus
tanned. D. Nv" " 'e '"'-
Mr.. Gloson spoke at considerable length on tn G
ground That the law did not require all the reasons nj
objection 10 be given TO the qualifications of voters
BESIDES when the list given to the sitting mem.
was IN MS power TO have proved that these vo-
ers were either lease-hoders or reversioners The
notice had sufficiently put him on his guard and ftbe
votes were good he might have obtained evidence q,
ne act Hiurther tme.was wanted, he asked why the
SUING member did not take il when il was offered IA
MN! lie was perfectly willing that both polls should
be fully examined. r' '"'u'O
Mr.. Brodnax thought much time had been usel.ss,v
oAPehueu OH lnaDgiDie notions. He did not think 4
necessary that the six qualifications should be denied in
list oil votes, like that of Oct 81 general negaton was
in his opinion, sufficient. But the sitting member was no
Obliged TO shew what the voter was he might be land
holder Rad the general ncgation been made the dificu
would have been avoided. Mr. b. conroverted at con
siderable length the views OF Mr. Garland in relation
to the report OF the Sheriff, and the time from which
the hve days for giving notice were TO be connuted
There seemed no difficulty in ascertainng the resul,
from the moment the Sheriff had compared the votss
And he asked II any knew a case in which tho
result was not known throughout the county in "a hour,
IL had over and been decided that IL wac no, 40
sentiai Tor the Sheriff to make proclamation The
moment the poll book was summed up, the votes bav
ing been compared, the election was closed and 90,
cry knight Grant might begin his tilt. Mr. H. cIosed
with an argument the time allowed respectivoI, o.
the contesiing party and the returned member Cor ~
tees, which he maintained 10 be FIVE DAYS after tbe 90
suit was known, Tor the contestor and five davs direct
~ alter Tor the answers Of the returned candidate
MI Garand OF NJ commenced reply TO Mr. n nm
The rule relative 10 the close Of election and ceron
tatIon OF the time allowed for notices r'
MIR. Eppes asked whether this debate had an, ..,.
ton to the motion Of the gentleman from Cba,Io,,ej
Mr. Garland said that Il had not; but a. the rosrh
from Dnwidje had led the way in arguing other ton;c
he had followed him. 'OP'''
The Speaker observed that the debate mus, bs ran
hned to the motion before the House
Mr. IIaDsbrosgh remarked that he was oisd ~.
gentleman (Mr Gibson) had admitted that he TNr II
did not raise This objection. Ho was Willing IN 49,
any course 10 prove whether or not he bad been