The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1870-06-29
LOCAL MATTERS.
THE CONTESTED ELECTION.
OF MIR. PAGE FOR THE
COMPLAINANTS.

On Yesterday the session of the court was
occupied by the argument of Major l.. r..
Page on behalf of the complainants.
MIR. Page commenced by regrctting that
wing to indlsposition he had not been pre-.
nnt to hear the arguments of Messrs. John-
sn and Crump. lie was surprised that the
aswer Of the respondents was in tho ma
tlfc of plea i'll abatement on the Ground
tht all of the complainants were not quail
fleL If such Il plea was to have been pre-
sened, it should have been done earlier. lie
OBJECTED to the general character of the
chage contained in the response that the
tlon,lnd held that the particulars of these
violations Of law should have been specified.
The yerment was also defective in not
nominating the fraudulent voters, TO The
end tbs the opposing party might inquire
into thtruth OF the charge. =.
lie de.ied that the question at issue Is for
whom amajority of the legal votes were
cast. a omplaint has been entered that
we have Y the neglect or fraud in law of
the commissioners been deprived Of the
muniment title to Office. But in either
view the Opposition of the respondents is
inadmlssible We maintain that the judges
OF election nc judges with whom rests the
final decision as to the qualification of
voters, and hat the commissioners are
ministerial offers, who arc .fuActuS cticio
when they hay performed the duty OF add
ing up the tsues received from the diff
tercnt precincts to show who is elected.
The Legislature id not intend to allow any
investigation rs the nature of u ballot
cast; and if such ,as their intention law
passed to that ctfet would have been un-
constitutional.
The speaker was hen proceeding to show
the duties of the JUICES and commissioners
respectively. ], .. .....--... ...-,...
The Court: woul say, Major, that it is
unnecessary to arglethe question MS to the
powers of tho commissioners ut this time.
Major Page then armcd to show that to
require voter to tell how he voted was
impolitic, unconstitutional, and tended to
invite frivolous and l:otracted contests.
Nowhere in the law is p)vSion made for Il
contest OH the ground OF disqualification of
voters except in the cae of members of
the General Assembly. Decisions of the
New York Court of Appels were cited to
show that the inquiry coul not be entered
into, as it was destructive q the vital prin-
cipIc of voting by ballot-wAich is secresy.
After further elaboration # these views
the speaker addressed himsGt to the con-
sidcration of the question wh,ther il can
didate is proved ineligible (as is alleged to
be the case with Mr.. Chandler the oppo-
sing candidate should receive IT, certificate.
Clearly not. If Il majority OF the votes
were cast for Mr.. Chandler, and Mr.. Chan
dler proved ineligible, there would be no
election. But we contend that these mat
tcrs are not proper subject of inquisy under
tho proceeding we have instituted. We
only claim that we are entitled to these ccr-
tiiicatcs, and whatever rights our oppO-
ncnts may claim by reason of fraudulent
votes cast for US may be obtained by smother
proceeding. They could plo :ead bya pro-
cceding in the nature Of quo eca1TaldO, as
we have done by proceeding in the nature
of IL aaandamus. But in any view Of the
case the great question of the right to go
into inquiry as to how certain ballots were
cast is stumbling-block in their path.
The law says the citizen may vote i'll Sc
crecy, and we have no right to penetrate
that veil. 1t is forbidden by the law and
the Constitution. AS those ballots Were
cast so they must stand, and unless this idea
is carried cut there will be no end to the
strife and bitterness cnsendered by the
election. .. i--%
When Major Page concluded the court
adjourned. Mr.. Necson will speak to-day.