The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1870-06-28
THE CONTESTED ELECTION..
JUDGE CRUMP's ARGUMENT. FOR
80 THE RESPONDENTS. ;. .''.,i

The contested election case occupied the
attention Of Judge Guigon all day yester-
& 1fr. L. B. Page, of counsel for complain.
ants, was to have followed MIR. johnson,
but, suffering from indisposition, he re
auested the counsel for respondents to con-
! tlnue their argument. - ,rsa, -: I,E''
Judge Crump accordingly took the floor,
and prefaced his argument BY the statement
that he.approached the consideration of the
subject with greater confidence because In
ms view the opposing counsel had not been
able, with all their learning and research,
to cite any authorities at all sustaining their
ideas OF the principles involved and of the
extent of the inquiry to be mado. Stripped
OF all its surroundings, the simple question
at issue is whether our officers shall be
those fairly elected by the suffrages of
legal voters or whether others shall OBJ
tain offices surreptitiously or by fraud,
though under the guise of law. If it
be true that the action of the judges ut the
polls is decisive and can never be revised,
the largest premium is offered to fraud, and
we can never hope for another fair election
in Virginia. If this argument of the other
side prevailed, when a party becomes in
power it may retain the power eternally,
and we may forever abandon all hope of an
honest expression of the popular will. We,
on the contrary, hold that every man who
Is legal voter shall cast his vote, and every
man who is not legal voter shall not exer-
else the right Of suffrage. And it is a false
philosophy that would say that because the
task of separating the true from the false is
difficult it should not be undertaken. Such
view (of the Inconvenience and trouble of
an investigation into the frauds perpetrated
in an electlon) is met and controYerted by
the very decision most relied upon by the
complainants People es. Pease II, New
York;, where it is distinctly said that the
rights Of parties cannot be maintained on
such basis.
Judge Crump then argued against the
idea that the judges of election are supreme
arbiters of the qualifications of voters. 1t
is folly to suppose that these men, some
times appointed by this court, sometimes
by single magistrate, or, in some cases,
Self-appointed, are endowed with such
powers. Would the Legislature vest such
enormous judicial powers in such hands !?
Picture the scene If the judges were to
undertake to exercise these functions !:
A voter whose qualifications they doubt
may present himself at sunrise, and, being
challenged, the judges might send for
witnesses, take testimony pro and con,
and the whole day might pass without
troversy might be kept up all day over
one vote, or they might reject every
voter presenting hinasof, without tran
scending the powers with which, according
to the theory of the other side, they are
clothed. -. ..tt-ss .-s-a,
In the Michigan case, quoted by Mr..
Maury, it was held by majority of the
court that it would be dangerous in the eX-
treme to contide such powers to the in
spectors Tor judges) of election, and Judge
Christiancy, in delivering the opinion, said
that even If they were expressly granted by
the Legislature the constitutionality of such
an act might well be doubted.
phrases "undue election or false return"
of which complaint must be made rs pre-
liminary to a contest, and urged that, ac-
cording to the letter and spirit Of the law,
this court was to take all proper evidence
tending to invalidate the election and de-
eide the case on its merits. This court is
to decide who has been elected, and no
election is complete unless the party has
received the highest number of legal votes.
Yet it is said that we cannot inquire which
were legal votes. 1t would require sixty
ton locomotive freighted with precedent
and fired by statute to draw the court
over down grade to such conclusion-to
say that fraudulent votes are as good us
honest votes, and that dishonesty unoues-
toned is to triumph in the Old Dominion.
The speaker then considered the general
policy OF the laws providing for secresy In
ballotting. In his view there was no sa-
credness about the ballot, but it was q
badge Of slavery. Though old as the world
itself, its introduction into this country was
Of modern date, and only within a few
years had it been in vogue In Virginia. No
decent reason had yet been assigned, and in
his opinion none could be adduccd; for It's
introduction into free country, and the
freer q country becomes the less necessity
there is for its use. 1t is an insult to the
poor man to say that he is afraid to vote his
sentiments, and it is a disgrace to free
country to say that a man cannot be pro-
tected in the open and manly expression OF
his opinions and choice. There was nothing,
therefore, about it to entitle it to the
sanctity which had been claimed for it.
There is no authority for claiming for the
ballot inviolable secresy under all circum-
stances, and the gentlemen on the other
side have not undertaken to show any such
authority; Their theory Of the impefngntra?- f,nr?.
bilty of the ballot is, in truth, born of their
own imagination. 1t is plain that the LeSls-
lature didn't adopt it, because in case of
contest for a seat in the House OF Delegates
the law says voter may be taken by the
neck and compelled to say for whom he
voted. Where is the sacredness of the bal
lot about that time? The idea OF the
complainants would seem to be to pre-
serve the secresy of the ballot, and
not to preserve the honesty of the
election. All votes cast, say they, must
be counted, though cast by aliens,
women, and minors, and we, the lawful
voters, can have no appea! from the dect-
sion of the judges who allow fraudulent
ballots to be put in the box. With this
view the great aim of all elections is to pre-
vent everybody from knowing how anybody
else voted. Fraud triumphs, but the ballot
Mr.. Maury ",What does my friend un-
derstand the principle of the ballot to be?"
Judge Crump II confess that, accord
ing to my understanding, there is no prin-
ciple about it." ia
he then showed that even where the bal
lot system was most strenu0usly CHAM
pioned it was not held that it was so sacred
rs the gentleman on the. other side con-
tended. Northern decisions sustained this
assertion, and in the State of Alabama
statute framed by q Legislature composed
almost entirely Of carpet baggers and scala
waps expressly provides that every ballot
shall be numbered as cast, and, going still
further, declares that man may be placed
on the Witness-stand and required under
oath to tell how he voted. Was not this
competent authority On the ballotsquestion ?
In affirmance of the principle enunciated
by the Alabama statute Judge Crump read
from the opinion Of Judge Christiancy, fire.
quently quoted in this argument, in which
it was held that man who it was proved
voted fraudulently could be forced to tell
for whom his ballot was cast. Once prove
that man is a legal voter, and inquiry