Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-12-28

How IL possible that the contcstng individual should
prove that the had not been paid! They might have
bccn paid and they might not but Of the power
OF the TO ascertain the fact Unless il should I've
shcwn that there necessity for unsetling the
old rule, he should vote against this resolution.
Mr. Davis had understood the gentleman from Dinwid
die to contend last year. that necessary for the nd
viual who claimed TO shew that Il was legal Ii
would be very great hardship upon the contesng cand
date TO be under the necessity of proving all the votes TO
which he objected TO be bad ones Such decision would
be acting rstrospectvely.
MIR. Brodnax said that the gentlemen from Rockbridgc
and Orange had both misunderstood him. He agreed with
the former i'm the coucus 10 which hc came Mr.. j.
had always contcndcd for the rule that was necessary
to prove that the disputed votes good But tlc gen
ueman mistaken il he supposed the state OF in.s had
not changed The proof had already been exhibited before
the board of scrutiny. The change had taken place In
the which the evidence was TO be offered
The only question whether the decision had been
recy nadc and II that were denied the denial must be
/ sustained by proof
pat the question the right ground, when he stated that
the decision oil the commissioners rri'nd tdcie evil
dcncc OF the correctness of the poll The law OF last
declared that vote should be placed the corrected
poll uneS shall bc proved 10 he good tsccs therefore
that the same rule exists formerly Indeed if any
but the former rule taken, the commissioners in the
counties would be The Judges whether the members OF the
Legislature were eligible
Mr.. Powell said that seemed to be admitted tina, The
rule which had heretofore prevailed correct, the
prOba,d should lie upon him claiming the benefit
the vote This rule grew out of the inherent difference
in the nature OF an affirmative and negative proposition;
the one being susceptible of proof the other not IL he
correct III this, the question then whether the ncopo-
Tor ny the gentleman from Dinwiddie, ought TO introduce
new rule. IL seemed 10 him that il should That
Board was to examine the polls and eNpunge from them
the votes which appeared 10 them To be bad; and the OBJ
jcct OF IL is il possible TO prevent contested elections
der belief that generally the parties concerned would
qucscc i'm the result acertained by the
but if il should fail of its object, and should still
before the Legislature he cond nothing in that
board altc nature of AN affirmative or negative pro-
position and thereby alter the rule which has heretofore
prevailed 1t had been very correctly said by the gentle
man from Fauquier, that if the board of
I 81, Il
ecdhg upon IN e case 1t would be IN some measure at
least TO make them the judges of the qualifications of the
members OF this body. The Committee of Privileges and
Elections might be abolished; and the report of the
mssioncrs come at once before the House
! Mr. Campbell of Brooke fully agreed with the gentle
man last up, and the Chairman OF the Committee. He
would not have risen, but for remark of the gentleman
from Dnwidde. He thought there could be single
member who surprised at the explanation of the
law, which he was now informed had been framed by the
gentleman from Dinwiddie He had understood it as
it had been eXpoundcd for he considered that tire
sruction given TO it by the gentleman would alter the
whole system of taking evidence He had declared that
every vote that brought here TO be examined must
he considered good until il shewn be otherwise
This rule conounded the distinction between airma-
tive and negative proposition III they supposed that
vote was contested the ground that the voter had
paid his taXes-he fact could be proved i'm the country
but when the parties came here and the contesng
ddae forced prove that the eff the had
not been paid the impossiby of doing evident.
The rule of evidence rcvcrsedby surprising every
good until he who contests shall shew them be otherwise
1t was not the rule by which the legislature had ever de-
cided intended to decide Because in that case il
vote be really bad and the testimony only be
ed by appealing to the individual by whom it is claimed
and he be exempted from the burhen OF proof the pre-
sumption OF its legality remains merely because is
the power of the contesng member prove illegal
He could not subscribe to such principle. The same
rule existed in the county as here. If OBJ
jeced 10, the objection must be disprovcd by him who
claims it. He wished the rule prevail here az at
the polls requiring the individual who held the affirmative
10 establish it by proof.
The question wa, then pat and the ayes and noes hay
Saturdays Enquirer, Ayes 81, Noes 40