Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1849-05-04
To The Editors of tie Enquirer.

Il
you refer 10 The circumstances, under when
offered my vote al the polls, on Saturday atcI
noon, for one OF the candidates for Congress. "A:
| your statement does me material inJastice,
must ask you TO publish The following explana
ton and correction.
On Friday, The second day Of The election,
voted. as YOU STATE tor candidates Tor The Senate
and House. but Ibid not "refuse 10 vote tor any
candidate ior Congress" From the practice
which had witnessed in The country, was un
der the impression, that voter might go 10 The
polls cast his vote in one or more OF the election:
pending, and reserve the right of casting it alter
wards 10 any one OF such elections, in which he
might not choose then to vote. 1t was my dis
tinct purpose depressed 10 several iriends) &c
reserve my right to vote in The Congressional
election, and l was not aware OF the existence
OF any law which could be construed as restrict
ing me from the liberty OF doing SO.
On Saturday morning learned, Tor the first
time, that The General Election Law Of 1881
contained the following provision: mo Eleclor
shall be admitted 10 poll second time al one
and the same cleeti9n although, al the first lime,
he shall not have voted Tor as many candidates
as by law he might have voted for" II seemed 10
be the opinion OF the gentlemen about the poll
books, by whom was informed OF this enact
| ment, that il prohibited voter from being lad
| been "admited 10 poll" in another election, ap-
pointed 10 be held on The same day, or the same
three days in case of the polls being kept open;
! and, without much consideration oil the subject,
was inclined 10 think that had, uninienional-
~, exhausted nv privilege of voting in the Con-
eressional EIeciIon Later in The day, was in
formed that This question had been submitted 10
Mr.. Ba1ler,t The Attorney General, and lhathe had
given decided opinion, in writing, that, mas
much as The Congressional election was not zone
and the same election" with The election Tor The
Senate or House of Delegates, the failure TO vote
Tor candidate Tor Congress al The first adms-
sion 10 poll did not prohibit second admission
for thai purpose. Desiring to cast my vote, and
hearing that my right 10 do SO was sustained by
the highest Law officer oil the Commonwealth, |
offered il a; the polls, informing the Mayor that
had already voted in the elections Tor The lie.
gisla;ufe. The Mayor decided mat the vote
could not be received, but said il should be re-
corded, il would lake The usual oath, that be.
ieved myself a qualified voter. The oath was
proposed by the Mayor, ant not by me, as you
enormously state. declined TO lake il, saying
that the question whether | had exhausted
my privilege was legal one, which had mol
examined sufficiently TO torn decided opinion,
or to justify an oath OF my belief concerning III;
and called upon Mr.. Ford and other by-s'anders
Congress, that had offered 10 vote for Mr.. Bolls,
and tina, my vote was rejected on the ground that
| had before voted .or candidates for The Legisa-
lure. Immediately after leaving The place of vo-
ting, examined The terms oil the oath, which the
Mayor required me 10 take before be would re-
cord my vote, and satisfied myself that II had no
relation whatever 10 the right OF voter TO come
10 the polls more than once, but referred simply
10 the qualifications incident 10 The general right
OF suffrage, such as owning land OF the value OF
$25. being head Of family and taxpayer
Iasain went TO The stand, and offered TO make
this oath. The Mayor was about 10 admin sier
it, as he first proposed, when Mr.. Robert u.
Scout inierposed, and urged upon him, that The
objection was not 10 my qualification as voer
but 10 my RICH, 10 vote alter had as be contend
ed, exhausted my privilege. To this The Mayor,
changing his mimi, assenled, and determined not
10 lake the oath. then inquired il il was posi-
BILE he could mean 10 determine finally The ques-
lion oil the vality OF my vote, which II was ccf-
lainly Tor the House Of Representatives Ultimate.
ly 10 decide, in case OF contested election; and,
| asked, il he simply rejected my vote, what evil
dence would lie House have thai such vote
was offered MIR. Scott met This by saying "Re-
cord it on The back o! The pol" and Tie Mayor,
again adopting his suggestion, ordered II 10 be SO
recorded
| need not, gentlemen, point out The parlicu-
lars in which the foregoing statement differs from
differences you have based upon incorrect prcmi-
ses, submit the facts 10 the consideration OF your
readers. Respectfully,
WIN. c. DARLINGTON.
Wepubish the above cheerfully, as we had no
desire 10 do injustice TO The Editor OF the Times.
We endeavorcd to gel al! the facts of case
which has been fully canvassed by all parties,
and with singular unanimiiy. With due sub
mission, we cannot but arrive al The conclusion
that Mr.. C.'s statements do not materially affect
The case, as Sc, forth by US. As 10 the ccnslruc'
lion OF The law, and with due difference 10 The
law officer Of The Commonwealth, We must in
sis upon cur version, as the only natural and
reasonable one. The election laws evidently re-
fer 10 The join, election OF Congressman, Sen
aor and Delegate, as "on" and The same eec-
| tion." Construed otherw.se, the law would be
totally imperative in large majority OF coun.
lies, which send single delegate. Again, the
commissioners take an oath 10 conduct ian
election OF member Of Congress, Senator and
Delegates" meaning "onc and the same
election"
Moreover, the matter has been decided by The
Legislature, in accordance with the opinion OF
the Mayor.
We shall not dwell upon The delay and the in-
trigues that would follow from a different con-
slrucrion, and which evidently constitute ",he
reason of The law"
To show that we were not alone in our view
OF The facts and the law, we annex the following
communications, written before our article ap.
peared.
For the Enquirer.
Messrs Editors: The election being now over,
should be inclined TO lei bY-gones be by-gones;
but when STE one OF the public journals OF this
city, which but very short time since was as
buer in the condemnation of the political conduct
OF MIR. John M Bolls as any other paper in This
city, and perhaps any other in the Union, change
| its ground, | cannot permit the editorial in that
| paper OF The Goth ult. 10 pass without word OF
| comment. One would suppose by The phrascolo-
sy Of that article that the editors Gid not only de-
sire The election OF Mr.. Bous, but that they aclu.
ally had voted Tor him. Now the lacls are as fol-
lows: On Friday The senior Editor Of that paper
cast his vote Tor the city and Senatorial candi-
dates, 1.-THE junior Editor, as believe, not voting
| al all 81 and on Saturday evening" Immediately
before the polls were closed, the same gentleman
| appeared again before his honor, the Mayor, and
claimed 10 have his vote recorded upon the same
book for one OF the Congressional candidates
| The Mayor decided that he had exhausted his
privilege and could not aud 10 the vote already
polled; bnt Mr.. Seldom being present and con-
senting, Mr.. Darlington was allowed 10 put his
vote upon the back OF the poll book for Mr.. Bous
and expressed the wish that Congress should SCI
lie the question OF his right TO have his vote poll
ed al any time he might chose 10 offer il.
AN AHTI.BoTTs AND AN ANTi-SEDDoN NAN.
For the Whiy.
Genlemen-As some voters in the city seem
10 have been much dissatisfied with the course
pursued BY The worthy officer conducting The late
election in Richmond, and Others who carp about
my humble selt-To the latter beg leave lc
say, that with sufficency OF vanity for any one
man OF my size, am YET always obliged tor in
formation from any source, and have not unife