The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1870-06-22
THE CONTESTED ELECTION.
PRELIMINARY sKIRMISHING Be
FORE JUDGE GUIGON.
THE CONSERVATIVES COURT A
FULL INVESTIGATION.
ONE THOUSAND RADICAL FRAUDS
/. r.> CAN BE PROVED. .
THE CALLED JADE wISCEs.

the day fixed by Judge Guigon for the trial
Of the contested election case growing out
Of the late municipal election in this city.
There were present Messrs. Ould & Car.
rington, Page IL Maury, and Alfred Nor.
ton, representing the complainants, and
Messrs. James Neeson; w. w. Crump, and
Marmaduke johnson, for the Conservative
candidates.
Mr.. Necson reminded the court that this
was the day to which the trial of the case
had been postponed, and stated that the
parties whom he and his associates repre-
scnted were anxious to have the matter de.
cided as soon as possible. Mayor Ellyson
and his associates on the ticket had urged
an early trial. On the day following that
on which it was decided to postpone the
case, however, Mr.. Ellyson had been sud.
denly summoned to Washington, and did
not return until Sunday. Since that time
there had been no opportunity for consul.
tation between him and his counsel, and
their preparation for the trial had been
consequently retarded. He came now to
ask that some preliminary matters be set.
tied, by which the proceedings may be
simplilied and expedited. The language oil
the statute is vague and indefinite, and we
are without precedent in the conduct Of
the case. 1t is not prescribed whether the
seat of the candidates should be seVerally
or jointly contested, although we suppose
that each one whose rights are affected il
entitled to a fair trial SO far Us his own case
is concerned. We do not know either
whether the party whose seat is contested
is required to file response, and if so, what
its nature Is, nor how it shall be filed; to
whom shall party give notice of his inten.
ton to take dcpositions-to his opponent
or to all the candidates. These contests in.
volve the right to office upon the merits o1
the election, and the question arises whether
it was legally conducted and whether frau
dulent votes have been cast. We believe
that frauds have been perpetrated. Shall
we file declaration to that effect? In i'm.
peaching these illegal votes to whom shall
notice be given, and what shall that notice
contain? Shall it contain minute details,
with names, &C., or shall it merely say that
divers fraudulent votes have been cast in
certain precinct or ward. Can the evidence
introduced in one caSe be admitted in an
other? He might indicate other points o.
be obyiated by this court prescribing reSu'
Iations for the contest. Feeling that thi:
course would expedite business, they would
ask the court to adopt such rules and regll.
lations rs may be necessary and proper. Nc
such rules are laid down now, and the
power of making them must be with the
court. The general election law lately
passed abrogates all antecedent laws anG
regulations Of the kind. =.
In reply to a question Mr.. Neeson said
he and his associates represented what /:
known rs the Conservative general ticket.
with one or two exceptions.
Judge Ould said that if the provisions OF
this law were novel, the application just
made was equally novel, if not more so.
Fifteen or more citizens had filed q COM
plant Of Il public grievance, and although
nearly twenty days have passed, no answer
son Interested in the matter demurred, but
parties supposed to be affected now come
forward for the trial of the case on its
merits, and practically ask how and what
they shall answer. The points upon which
instruction is asked do not concern mere
matters Of detail OF rules of practice, but
the questions propOunded in this prellml-
nary form 90 to the whole merits of the con.
troVerSy.
Judge Crump asked where, in the law,
the learned gentleman got the idea that an
answer should be filed.
Judge Ould replied that this did not de-
pend upon the statute, but upon ordinary
principles of right and wrong. The parties
affected are not compelled to answer, Dul
if they do not answer they can't complain
He protested, however, that it was not pro-
per for the court to instruct them rs tC
what their answer should be.
Judge Crump: We don't ask any such
thing. We lwould like counsel, instead o.
declaiming, to show why we are compelled
to answer.
Judge Ould, continuing, repeated thai
this proceeding was based on the statute
according to his view. These citizens had
complained that certain ministerial officers
had transcended their duty, and they ask
simply that the court now do what those
officers should have done. We do not con.
slider this case of contested election. A
wrong has been committed, and this court
having the corrective power, is asked to
use it.
The Court Does this law give me any
authority to act save in case Of contest
of the election9
Judge Ould: think so. Under the law
where there are two candidates the one
who does not receive the certificate has the
right to institute proceedings contesting the
legality of the return. This would be purely
q case of contested election. But, beyond
the interests of the candidates, the public
have an interest that there should be con-
formity to law in the election and If fifteen
citizens have reason to believe that there
has been wrong committed, or any de-
parture from law, they can bring the matter
TO your attention by complaining OF the
particular act by which they are ag-
grleved. They have right to see that there
is a fair and honest election.
The Court here asked whether party
who has received the certificate Of election
can contest the election of the party who
did without this complaint of citizens being
made. Is not the complaint necessary
preliminary Of q contest?
Judge Ould replied that in his view his
answer to the question OF the Court would
not affect the case in point.
The Court Except that I understood
your argument to be that this is not con-
test.
Judge Ould rejoined that it is not con-
test between Ellyson and Chahoon, or be-
tween any Of the rival candidates. This
court is asked by voters to right wrong.
But even if there was a contest, If it ap-
peared that's certificate had been Improperly
awarded, the wrong ought to be corrected
by this tribunal. The question of fraudu-
lent voting Is not here involved, as opposing
counsel had urged. If the commissioners
knew by the very best evidence that there
were 1000 illegal votes cast for Chahoon
still they would be bound to give the certi-
ficate to him if the return of the judges
showed that he had actually received ma
iority of all the votes cast. Suppose the
Court even is satisfied that LOCO illegal
votes were cast, and the returns show other
wise. the certificates must conform to them.
The decision upon the point made in the
complaint does not shut out the unsuccess-
ful candidates under that decision from a
contest by quo ,parTant0 or some such
means. True the Court is to decide the
question on the merits of the election, but
the merits are those presented in the bill Of
If there are other matters by
which others are aggrieVed they, too, may
file a petition.
The Court Would not the candidates
- l. La1I;nn. nort;f finntac he emf off from q