Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1848-11-10
Fam The Richmond Examiner.
THE COMMISSIONERS OF ELECTEc

THE COMMISSIONER OF ELECTION.
Much has been written and dccaimei abou' the
noI,ica complexion o! the Commits .ionersafPoin
led 70 supernend the Presidential Election 10
Virginia 4 majority ol these Commissioners
are said % he Democrats, AMI 50 VI belleVc lhey
arc. In me .ichnond Wing in the LynehbuTs
Vi,ciuian, in the L,nchhure Palvot in the Wiz
ches,er Republican, in The Fredericksburg News,
in The p, efsbuig In!eseEcer, and in nearly every
other Wing paper in Virginia, we have seen ms
fact made the llemc Of much abusive and vrulent
viuperaicn. These papers have denounced
these appointments as Gaping the climax oil ON
cial iniqulty, and the Governor VINO MADE mem
has bcen Iil,ened 10 King Hcrud, Benedict Ar
mold. Nero. Caigula, Tiberius Judas iscariot,
Henry VIII, Sir Robert WaIpoIe, lago, Julian
he Aposiate, 10 the Devil, and to Sir William
Berkeley.
1t is our present purpose to examine the JUS
lice of this dcnuncation. Ii we can show that
in making these appointments, the present Gov
ernor OF Virginia, 1s,, simply followed the pre-
cedent establishes By those who have filled his
Office before him, both WhigS and Democrats;
ID. that he followed the Identical course which
the Wing party itself have invariably followed
in every appointment OF county commissioners,
wherever they have Wing Court; and, 3rd j,
that he followed the course marked out Tor him
br reason. common sense, and his oaths OF Of
flee: VIC presume that these appointments will
he indicated and the dcnunciat:on proved to
ne unjust We DO not suppose for moment
that what We shall say, and the undeniable facts
which we shall state, will have any effect what
ever upon the papers who have put forth this
denunciaton; but we do think that the people
Of Virginia, 10 whom we address ourselves,
will bear us out 10 the assertion, that the ap.
pointment of the Democratic majority was, IN
der the circumstances, right, fl, and lawful.
Ist. For the prccedenls. We have By US no
records to which we can refer, else it would be
easy to show by an examination OF all the ap-
pointments, that the precedent is nearly uni
form. But from recollection alone We can
name sufficient number of cases TO establish
beyond all doubt or question, that there IS such
precedent, abundant and strong.
For the election OF 1900 a majority OF Repub
LEANS were appointed. Governor Giles appoint
cd very large majority OF Republican Com
missiuners Tor The election Of 1923. Lleu'enan
Governor Daniel did the sane hing; and 8
mach for the Democratic prrcet!enl. And "ha
S,d Inc Wing Governor Gi!me.7 VIVA, he dit
throughout the Stale we know not bnt W
know lha, he appointed Whis Commissioned
in Hanover, Orange AMI in Stafford, all couniie
then represented by Democrats. and one OF whlc
(staHord) gives a Democratic majority OF
clear hundred. We are cerain, mat IN Inc re
sion OF country around The residence Of ~
Smith, the psesen; Governor, majorIties OF VIII
Commissioners were universally appoinled; $
that he could mol be ignorant OF the e1is!ins Pre-
csteat during the administration OF Wing.
Its then certain tina. this thing has been don
repeatedly ia Virginia Then how is II that II
WING press spesl, OF i, as unknown until Il
wear 1887 Ii is certain thst il has been dor
bya Wing Governor. With what decency al
with what grace can the Wing press complain
il al ALI
2dy Tie Wing party in Virginia have inv
; riably done this thing whenever and WheTe'
they have had The power. The county Courts ia