Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1843-12-28
MrssRs. porrs AM JoNrs.

a. ds5ealt 20 determine which IL the commenda
he. sad which is be sdmired-the ingenuity u
ssbdor exhibited by Mr. Richie In his remarks Of the 22
Instant the Of the contested election from this dis
Setting ssids the plain provisions of the law aud the
decisions that have been made upon them IA
Congress no surnary dsposes Of the whole case by sup
posing the latest decisions Of the Virginia Legislature
upon tss construction 81 - laws will be conclusive
the sablsctand then cites the contest OF Adams and
Stewart winch oecuEred the session OF lsJO-Ji-inune
dsiey utter adoption Of the constitution IN which
.... il appeaed that the officer. and
the House sustained the legality Of the election But what
were the crcumstances' Why, from the report OF the
committee. IL appeared that both parties were present at
the election held that point where the officers were not
sworn; both the fact; they agreed subsequently To
abide by th, rcsu-o claim advantage from the oms
sion; aud Mr. Stewart, who received minority OF the
votes at that precinct stated before the committee that he
believed the election have been fairly conducted, aud
that NO difference would have been made IN the result the
officers had been sworn thus every waving all OBJ
ection- TO the legality OF the proceedings therefore
the committee and the House refused aside the cleo
that ground.
So also in the case Of Gibson aud HNnsbrough. during
the same sesionthc point made and the house
refused To set aside that election also But whyl Because
NJ the committee say their report that does not appear
any had been given PRIOR the meeting Of the
General Assembly OF intention contest the seat
that ground and that therefore, they did feel them
selves authorized look the evidence and particularly
NJ Mr Gibson the contestant waived all benefit hamighi
result him from such omission the part ct the officers
10 be
But why did the candid editor II he did desire
create false impression the public mindand prejudice
the case through the district furnish the particulars o
Their case tina, occurred during the session. and the
only that bears analogy thsll was 10 be found
IN the volume OF the Jouna-and was that, at
the me created much and excitement than
either of the others-and wns m all respects more i'm
portant
Imean the between the late amened Jas Barbour
and Mr. Davis That election contested the ground
that the officers were not sworn unaccompaned by
any of the circumstances connected with the
other and what the action OF the Commit
tee and the House Why the Committee promptly decid.
ed that the election illegally held and that the
ought To be vacstedthe House promptly adopted the
report the Committee, without division, and the cleo
ton sent back TO the people.
So that il Congress should the suggestion of Mr. Rit
chic adopt the ates, OF the House OF Delegates of
yginia ON the of their own law, then Mr..
Jones will have back and present himself before
the people of the district before he establish his right
the seat.
But may be added that the law quoted by Mr.. Bolts IN
his memorial adopted 10y the same Legislature subse
quent all OF the above decisions, and intended 10
correct oil such irregularities hereater-since which time
only two contests have the State that ground,
and those were first the OF Draper and Johnston the
year 1882 for n Congress, when the Committee and
the House promptly decided that such neglect the OF
officers conducting the election To take the oas pre-
scrbed by law viiaed their The other the
of Smith and Banks IN ls4l, IN which the election
contested the ground that the officers
and Mr. Banks finding the law and the decisions both Of
the State Legislature and the House Of Representatives
both strong against him, would Tor the decision
OF the Committee but resigned the and referred the
question back the people, when Smith his competitor
elected.
SO much for Mr. Richie and has decisions. b.
December Goth, lsl3.