The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1870-07-13
THE CONTESTED ELECTION

Arguments of Mcssrs. l.. r. Page and ".
". Crump-Dcfcnco Of the Third Pre-
cinct Infomahtes-The Congressional
Preccdents- Oregon and California De-
ctsions-The TIrDna Election Lao Ne
ccsSarily Mandatory-Too Late to amend
the Poll BookS--Thc Difference Bct'occn
Polls and Rcturns-Ho,o Great Frauds
May be Pcrpctrdtcd-The Necessity Of
FoIo,cing the Statutcs-No Safety in'the
Broad Road Gf Directory Luses, dc.
The contested election case was resumed
in the Hastings Court yesterday morning
Judge Guigon presiding. The intense heat
of the weathcr--thc thermometer making
90 in the clerks Ofice-rather thinned out
the crowd that has been in daily attendance
since the commencement of the contest.
The lawyers sauntered in one at time,
looking pretty we'll tagged out, and by the
time the court opened both spectators and
attorneys looked as wearicd rs if the pro-
ccedngs were about ending instead of COM
mcnciug.
Argument of MIR. T.. IL. Page.
Mr.. Page thought he could safely say that
al the counsel agreed in thanking t he court
for the patience with which it had heard
this case, and in congratulating it that the
matter WAS so near IN end. They also con-
graduated themselves that case which had
created so much excitement out of court
had been conducted by counsel on both
sides with 30 much courtesy and good feel
ing.
THE MATTER AT 1ssuE-THE COMMISSIONERS.
The point in dispute was well stated by
Mr.. NecSon yesterday. We also believe
that the laws of election establish checks
and balances, and arc safeguards to the bal
lot, but we do not believe that they are to
he SO used as to Illustrate the will of the
people. The action of the commissioners
was not influenced by the returns sent here.
rs c0ntcndcd by the counsel on the other
side, for they never opened the returns.
Their decision was based on other grounds
and motives than these returns furnished.
He did not wish to impeach the action Of
the commissioners further than they had
done his client this wrong. That their ac-
tion was not based on these returns was
first precinct of Marshall Ward which vote
was rejected.
DEFENCE OF THE INFoRMAL1T1Es AT THE
THIRD PRECINCT OF JEFFERSON WARD.
1t was true that duplicate poll-books had
not been kept ut the third precinct, but il
the court was satisfied that it had the truth
! before it, that no harm had come by it to
| either OF the contestants, and that none was
conjcctured or surmiSed, it could not shut
its eyes to the sworn statement of the of.
ticcrs making the return. The objection is
OF the mercSt tcchnicality, and has no
foundation in reason. 1t had been argued
with considerable gravity that the absence
OF one OF the Judges for one hour Vitiated
the election. The law, it is true, contem.
plated that three judges should be present
but the law says cit shall be lawful for the
other two, after the lapse of an hour, to
one" but it nowhere declares that three
Judges shall all the time be present. But
even If they We're right in that, it is no
where shown that either of the contestants
received injury from the votes cast in the
hour Of the absent judge. 1t must first be
proved that illegal votes were cast. A de-
ciSion of the Supreme Court of Louisiana
Q3th Louisiana Reports, p. 1I6, Laner Us.
Gulatus,) was read to show that it must
be averrcd that informalities did damage a
contestant, not might have damaged him.
THE CONDUCT OF THE THREE JUDGES.
Much had been said Of the conduct of
the Judges that one was at one window,
another was ut another, &c. But it has not
been shown here that they were not always
on hand TO attend to challenges or any other
duty required of them, and it is not shown
that they were not sufficiently near each
t> IL il, Il
that everything was properly conducted Us
far rs the counting and separating the
ballots.
THE CONGRESSIONAL PREOEDENTS.
In the case presented by Mr.. Necson, de-
cidcd in Congress (Bcnnctt ys. Chapman),
Mir. Page said the House was Democratic,
and the committee reported in favor OF
seating Republican, but the House
adopted the minority report OF Mr.. Ste
phens, Ousted the Republican, and seated
the Democrat. This much for the political
view of the matter, which should have
weight when it is rccollectcd that Congress
is body fresh from the people and Us eX-
ctable and partisan rs the people them
selves. But even the case cited did not APP
ply to the case now in court. But it was
not Il matter of Importance what these de-
cisions were on one side or the other, for
they were not q guide to this court, and
should, in the nature Of things, he excluded
from it as authority.
HOW FAR THEY MAY GO WITHOUT yITIAT1NG
AN ELECTION.
lie read from 1st Oregon Reports, p. 1876,
Day vs. Kent, in which the pOll-book was
not returned, and the Court decided that
the book, if produced, could only have veri-
fled the returns of the judges, which were
TO be believed of themselves, and its ab-
scnce did not yitiatc the election. Neither
did the neglect OF the clerks to write the
certificates on the poil-books do so, thou.l,
that was prescribed by law. 1t mattered
not to the electors whose rights were in
volvcd, whether the election was in strict
form or not if their will was given effect as
expressed ut the polls. The truth was not
to be thrown out bya court because it
came through imperfect forms. 1t would
be absurd to say that the rights of the pco-
pie should be sacrificed by the mistakes OF
every petty officer who conducts an cleo
ton. Twelfth California Reports, D. 352,
Whiplev Us. McCune, was read, in which it
was decided that an act in election, how
ever erroneous, cannot be complained of
unless damage accrues to one of the con-
testantS.
The Court must have noticed that not
one Of the counsel on the other side at
tempted to impeach the integrity of the
returns now brought here. Only one of
them went SO far as to say that the rights of
their client might have been injured. The
evidence does not affect them, and only goes
so far as to show that there might have been
wrong done-not that there was any done.
They have failed to show single authority
for setting aside the returns of an election
unless ii was aiiir,Datively shown that they
were untrue. When parties come into court
and plead the law to take rights from others