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

angry feelings while that sanctioned by the majority of
admitted by ALL that such contests are too eouent
And that there few individuals i'm the State
vices so mportsnt,a be worth the expcDce
BILE growing out OF contested election The board
anime and correct the poll well qualified discharge the
duty. OF whom is IL composed OF the clerk who has
possession OF the bookthe commissioner of the
venue, whe Is in general acquainted with the circumsan
OF the votersthe sheri-the collector OF the taxes
These generally know the facts upon which the
qualification rests. In addition these there three
commissioners selected for their npartiay and inelli
gence, II any of the other officers should be orgetul
Of their duty become parzans these latter gentle
men would apply the corrective Was IL asking much
for the acts Of board thus composed that they might fur
nsh presumption of their correctness This pres,mp-
on to be counervaied by circumstance OF suspicion
that might be thrown upon the vote shadow doubt
would change the onus o6and and place il upon the
candidate claiming the vote Butis stated that the prac
ice in some counties has been exclude the conesng
candidates or their friends from the board Ii such be the
proceeding certainly erroneous, and be easily
corrected by law declaring that the investigation of the
board shall be in public. The contestng candidates or
their friends appear, ascertain the rules Of decision
and if they conceive them erroneous they can have
them supervised here This House Is onen r., an
appeal, and the Committee of Privileges and Elections
will re-examine the poll correct all errors whether APP
by evidence regularly TAKEN And the power to be exer
ciscd precisely analogous that by county
ces court The parties berty to take the de
moro While the court will presume the decision of the
Justice to be right nought to the contrary appears Yet
both the question OF law and fact is open, and the
may not only in law growing of evidence
produced before the justice but they may hear all evil
dence offered whether the Justice or not The
analogy drawn between such case and that of contest
growing out OF corrected poll is perfect But il is aleg-
ed that if this construction prevails parties will be
priced That the contesng candidates in this have
acted under belief that the old rule would operate This
may be their misfortune. But the conseq uences
will ensue to any one who may be engaged in
future session The same surprise will be suffered by
them that these parties may suffer now. Mr.. w. had
not enquired whether the rule settled on yesterday would
operate more avoraby to the sitting member or
candidate. At this stage of the ednr he did not
consider that legitimate enquiry The facts were not
Judiciaiy before the House. Until they WERE members
would not prejudice the question All we have now to do
Is to adopt such rule for the guidance of the committee
may best calculated to promote full and fair en-
preston of the people the polls at the same time
guard against repetition of have sometimes wit
messed OF contests in which the object of the contesng
upon the poll Of each The rule adopted seemed best
adapted TO that end This question had been called strict
~ legal one AS such, he had considered it. And
siaeng as such 1t had been apy compared settled
account, or commissioners report In such cases III
well known that the rule is that he who wishes TO sur
charge or ialsiy was under the necessity of rebutting
the presumption of its by evidence to throw
doubt upon it. In every point Of view in which could
the committee yesterday right and that the rule
now commended Tor would be mischievous.
Mr. Marshall said, that being well aware the House
was atgued, he should press upon its aenion only few
remarks, in which he hoped he should be INDUCED The
question was whether the burhen of proof which had hi
hero been on party should be transferred other
He believed he could shcw in few words that the propo-
shon was hostile TO correct principles The individual
VINE received vote was required TO shew that good
on one ground onyo sustain it by shelving the possess
sion of single qualification in the voter But it was far
different with the individual Directing the VOTE if he
were called on to shew by proof that the was not
qualified. He might obtain testimony that on some
one ground the voter qualifedbut if the other
party followed il up by demand that he should prove
mat the voter had not right to some other
ground would il be possible for the confession produce
the requisite evidenced If then the report of poll was
was TO be taken as presumptive evidence it be
garded as presumptve evidence that the had right
on every conceivable ground and the placing of name
on the poll was not emily pTia doie evidence that the
ter possessed qualification but that he possessed them
all The difference in the acquisitions upon two par
ties was most striking The individual denying the ega
MY oil vote must prove bad every ground, while
all that the party holding the affirmative had do was
TO prove that on some ono ground it legal. For in
stance ne would take the case OF an individual voting
land hoder-while in fact he had conveyed away the
land previous to the election. The land book was pro-
duced, and his being found upon it, vote was al
lowed upon that qualification in the poll where
as in point OF fact he had right VOTE he had
conveyed away the property which his single qua-
cation rested III then, under the rule sought to be
established, the obecor to his in afterwards
with evidence to shew that he did not the land what
good would do? The voter might have right upon
remainder or as areversoner other
ground, and you have proof to shew the conrary-or
ms father might have died. and the voter have the right
vote as devisee, he might bave married wife and
have voted in her right That all either of these
grounds did not exist to give legality his vote
tesor could not brngproo would be utterly imposs-
bic. Whereas if the burhen of proof lay the other
side il would be easy to show that the quail
fed by of these possessions Thus il would he
perceived that where proof required support the
negative declaration, ii could he sustained If the
decision OF the Board of Scrutiny to be considered
prid tdce evidence it would be useless discover
rors IN the books, or in the opinions of the Board
contest an election the ground of those errors Gentle
men had spoken of that Board il it had been vested
with full powers decide finally upon the legality of the
votes But no such Board had been appointed. Ii was
competent to those who desired TO place such powers
the hands OF such tribunal to propose its appointment;
and then the question could be considered, whether they
would authorize upwards of hundred boards decide
dehnvely upon the construction OF the law. Conflicting
decisions would be constantly given, and there would
contested elections without end Such a Board would be
great evil but the present Board highly beneficial
they were appointed for valuable purposes strike from
the poll all votes which, in the opinion of majority of the
commissioners arc not legal but without assigning any
reasons therefor He considered the power given those
commissioners merely negativeto strike off those votes
gate the qualifications of those which they left on the
poll wasa mere presumption, would be from the
form the oath prescribed by the law that they left none
on the poll which were badand doubt the Board
sonor could be doubted that they were empowered 30
send for evidence to aid their opinions they would give
correct decision any other intelligent tribunal BUTT
was not did the law anticipate such minute
ness Its object to give, to the House through the
fundamentally Of the Board of Scrutiny purged poll
wnnowed clear from gross errors; and that it might
formerly present every kind of mperfecton That great
benefit had arisen from the provision of this scrutiny he
had no doubt as would prevent many contested elections
and greatly relieve the House from such perpe ling
questions How then could il be said that had been of
no use because majority of members did not wish
to yield to 1t the prerogavcs of this Housc?-Anohcr
point had been urged, which touched the question but
partially II had been supposed that il material on
which party the burthen of proof thrown the land
] Ill.