Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-12-30


with comparisons of that examination legal proceedings
in which analogy could be shewnl Indeed he believed
tina. anaogea reasoning was the most erroneous in tho
ngs In the county at the polls, and before the Com
missioners the preliminary steps towards
rect result: and after these preliminary measures who
was 10 decide finally the question This House.
most assurcdlyBut 1t had been said that they must
take the decision of the Board of Scrutiny, as primo
gdeie evidence. Certainly,-whcn il cone sed
Every member in this House holding his seat on the
same ground and it was doubtless na Jacie evidence
until 1t was objected to- But the policy OF the law being
that every individual wishing to exercise his right must
show himself to be entitled il, he was bounj hen it was
denied TO produce proof in its support The question:
when came here, although the presumption might be-
the country that the votes upon the poll were good-mu
be otherwise sustained. That presumption was not si-
cient member claimed seat, he must sbew that he
had right TO It, and that must be shcwn by proof OF the
legality Of the upon his poll was not for him.
who contested the right OF the sitting member TO shew
that he had not claim i,but for him who wished to
exercise the right to prove that he entitled it, II
the nature OF the proof required to be taken consc
ration, in such case, were to be fixed by this resolution
the House was bound to reiectit Wherever individual
was exercising right and inquiry instituted the
form OF Quo tcarrato to ascertain what ground the
right exercsedd they ever hear that the Individual
nstutng the inquiry, shew that the person claim
ing the right was not entitled to exercise On the
rary it was the universal rule that the individual
ing IT, should show his right Such ought be- and had
been the rule in like that before the House
and he was therefore, convinced that the resolution should
not prevail ..f
Mr.. Campbell of Brooke, said it must be admitted
that unless the act of last year had changed the character
oil the law, the rule must remain the formerly
that he who declared affirmative. must sustain that de-
caraon by proof This subject had be eahoracy dis
cussed last and the gentlemen who had address,
ed the House. had given the why the rule now
sought TO be established could not be sustained The
question had the law ofast year changed the princi
pe He argued that the law remained essentially the same
anu mat the whole inquiry began after the decision had
been given by the Board Of Scrutiny After that decision
gives notice that he intends to contest certain votes
oil which he transmits him list. He does the
grounds which he denies their legality except those of
theya
lifted according TO law. also notifies Of the votes on
his pe which he objects to. and testimony is then be
produced The party who claims the vote show that
the vote has some one qualification. But if the parties
claim any of the votes struck by the Board of Scrutiny
they must alcdgc what ground they prove that
they should have been put upon the poll that he, by
whom they are objected TO- may into the exam
inaton with evidence TO rebut the claim. The re-
solution now before the House, although changed in
Phraseology, was. in substance, the that pro-
posed yesterday by the gentleman from Nicholas, (r
Stephenson it declared that the list Of votes returned
should be taken pTimd Jdcie presumption Of the
state OF the election, and equivalent saying that
they to be considered good until the obecor proved
the contrary Thus the objector either side must
prove all votes objected TO by him. be bad whether
doing so he were required prove either the negative
the airmaye-a doctrine too absurd TO be admitted for
moment The rules of evidence here, well Courts
oil Justice were SIMPLE well established and could
be changed They made it the duty of him who held the
affirmative side OF question, TO begin and give such
proof at least to raise the presumption of fact
sumed Then, the adversary produce his rebuttng
proof BY the Constitution it would be perceived that two
classes oil objections can be raised in a like this
which were distinguished in the law of last ycarbcng
objections to voter for want of property qualifications
and objections for personal disqualification. Where a vote
objected to or want OF property qualifications, the ar
NAIVE was thrown upon the party claiming the vote
must be shewn by him that the had one OF
those quacatons and not by the obector that he
none OF them-which never could be proved But when
the objection that the personally disqua-
hed-was alien, IDIOT a minor Sc Sc then the OBJ
ector held the affirmative and must give proof of the fact
aiiirmed, before his adversary required to rebuilt
thus the olecor, in the of alien, prove the
thn o,,I H. -.
ing could rebut, by showing his naturalization; and
So in all cases, the probdndi necessarily with
him who held the affirmative, and would shit from
side to side in pursuit of that affirmative But to ar
que that the person who claimed the votes, should
shew them good throughout or that the obecor should
shcw them TO be bad throughout papable absurd-
y-lf the rule maintained that the person Directing
TO vote should be bound to prove bad in the
alien, the obJecor would be required only prove
that the voter had any the property
impossible that would bebut he had been born in
foreign and-and that he had not been nairazed: 10 do
which, he go all the Courts of Record i'm the Uni
ted States for evidence Of the ac-But still worse; under
this doctrine of lrid Jdcie evidence of the goodness
voes Just IN proportion to the number of qualifications
That the objector proved voter possess, would
the strength OF the presumption increase that he pos
sessed some OF those not dsproved How could it be pro-
yea That he had not an estate by descent, of which
there public record whether he had or not tn,
party Directing could neither say prove Ii had beer
admitted that the rule he (Mr c. contended un
I'll changed by the act OF last session He maintained tina
that act did not change the rules of evidence in this par
cuar but the contrary confirmed and established then
beyond all question And it done intentionally TO pu
an end to this specious but unsound doctrine The same
proposition then revised and reference TO that par
oil the law which prescribed the form of the notice. would
shew the intent Of that law. The distinction was thcI
drawn between the property qualification and persona
that each party shall i'm hei
notices. give list OF the votes objected noticing opposite
each, when apropcrty disqualification one comprehensive
statement that the voter has the qualification required
law; but where personal disqualification the ground
objection that the particular in which the voter was dis
qualified should be declared. And why was this dsnc
TOM Because the first class being those of which the par
y claiming the vote held the affirmative he might prov,
any one ground denied in the general decaraonbut
case of personal disqualification olector being oblg
ed to prove it, he is bound to appse his opponent of tn.
particular point he intends 10 prove that he
himself with rcbutng testimony 10 contradict the dsab
ty or shew its removal.-The gentleman from Albemarl,
said that the law should be construed produce wba
they might suppose the best rule for the public interest
and yet they were not sitting in their legislative bu
their Judicial capacity; and bound TO say, wha
the law should be, but what il They were not t.
work out by the construction of old law an er poS
fdcfo rule The gentleman had also said that the case was
like an appeal from the judgment of justice the county
court Mr. C. denied that this was i'm any sense tC
be looked upon as an appeal But taking the analogy o.
the gentlemdn,andit was most unfortunate one-where
court did not go the presumption that the judgment be
low was correct until the appellant proved Incorrect Or
the contrary the appellant party did produce sui
de 0U0, evidence oil the correctness of his his
Judgment would without any proof of from the other
party be affirmed So was this de proceeding by the
rule If the House pleased make the report of the
Board OF scrutiny p,imd |dcie evidence let them do il by
construction catch those who had Interpreted according
TO the uniform rule.
Mr. Morris stated his view of the uniform rule TO be thai
where party objects 10 vote for want Of property