The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-03-12
A Card from Hon. A. II. Davis.
RICHMOND, Va, March 9th, 1874
n tho Ed;fors of the DISPATCH:

To the Editors Of the Dispatch:
Gentlemen,-Your unqualified endore.
ment of the recent action OF the House Of
Represe ntatives in the matter Of contest be.
tween Mr.. C. Y. Thomas and myself leads
me to suppose your conclusions have been
made up from the partial statements that
have been industriously published IN the In.
terest of Mr. Thomas, and I therefore n.
quest, as all act of justice to myself and the
public, that you will publish the following
facts, which have not been mentioned In lbe
statements alluded to, and which perhaps
NAV show the matter In different light.
By act Of Congress, which went into elled
January 10, 1873. the evidence in contested
election clses Is required to be taken "shln
ninety days afte1 the date Of serving the
answer to notice OF contest. The contestant
ia required to take his testimony within les
first forty days next ensuing the date OF set'
vice. The contestee is required to take hs
testimony within the next succeeding ioiv
DAYS; and the contestant has the remaining
ten days for taking testimony In reouI'a.
Mr. Thomas was served with my answer on
the 18th of January, 1873, and should
have concluded his testimony within
forty days thereafter. He failed, however,
to take any testimony within bis own
forty days, but took the same Tlsnn
the forty days allotted to me. AS Congress
thought it necessary to pass such law,
thought it necessary to comply with us 10
uuirements. Therefore appeared oefore'ne
Committee on Elections and moved 20 er
clude the testimony of Thomas, taken cou ,
trary to law. But the motion TO excluus "a1
oyerrI lied, and the testimony aoH!t,e".
afterward appeared before the comml'.ee ANU
submitted motion for an extension OF ITs
to take testimony In nv own behalf. LUZ
motion supported by affidayits ot p1gI T
nent and bighly-respectable citizens Of hit
fax tending 10 show that large number
negroes IN that county had voted illegan!
for Thomas, and bad been counted for bin
by the county cauvassers. But Tbs n@
ton was also overruled. Hence Il Wis
that Messrs. Lamar aud Speer Demo
crats) submitted their minority repoe.
Thomas should have sustained bis eon1ea
by testimony taken conformaoly 10 Jaw.
Failing in this, his contest should have oeea
unless the House saw it to exIeoa
his time for the purpose Of retaking 81, 'es'
timony. But, contrary to all reasousoeef
pectation, the Illegal testimony taken "
Thomas was admitted in his behalf, and .eu'
an extension of time denied to me. olae
reasons and facts can be given to sno" ",
injustice of the action taken in the CASE Wv
omit further detail at present. ;,
desire, however, in this connecuon y
correct another error or statement WIZ
iud in your issue OF this morning resA'. g..
my vote upon the bill to PROVIDE .0 t, wv
free distribution OF seeds aud puolic w.,
ments. I did not vote for lhe ieI ~.
ration of the Thanking privilege. Wv n
contrary, voted against the suos.l'aa -.
Mr., Butler, which was y proposition n w
store the franking privilege tor ;.,srr.,
time. voted for it not In !oe ,a ao' NO.
of self, but in the interest oi .u' ssss1,
pIe who are calling for tne@ 'Js al
and documents, aud especially Inc peo 'rpDnH
Virginia. Ivoted for it knowing u h "u
be nv last vote, and that no PERSONA IL s.,,,.
could thereby inure to me. nave ": .sn IN
f,rtion To know my last vote wss CIV" ~ ~.
she interest Of those had the hshoa ,,,.oa
nrasent II ia a further cause OF gratihs" .,I
- mo that the intelligence, the wealtn 'n;.,
Tho rof;nement of the district will nos To- FL,
all
in the fact that was compelled " "'
in favor Of Mr.. Thomas. n,rs.
Respectfully, a. IL D
ron the committee that reported 10 ', ,so
of unseating Mr.. Davis there WIZ ,nl,s
Democrats-one of them Que Of 'ne S,,,.
lawyers in the House. Here is sbeh ispy w.,
Tnon he Evidence before tie son's''I@tss
the undersigned do no! dissem :J.,,inouy
resolutions reported ; but as tine i've. me tim.
of the contestant was taken alsa ~. me eou.
allowed by law, and for this reason l, nv be
,es,ee did not take the testimony VIZ ss, We
alleges he otherwise would have a sor i,p-
are OF the opinion that his rsauesSs
Their time should have been sssntsu .x
!. Q. Z. Lis'i,
So rot even the Democrats on ''' n,s
mittee pretended to say thai n NJ.
had any right to the sat- The p o. ~,ds
made NO speech fox Dir. DAVIS ~ @d tx
none for himself. There was no ssn siss
House upon the question Of 'hs aa,sca Il
He had no righa 70 the seat III ms
either Democrats or Conservative .s,op II
We do not care to argue the s, qa
| his vote ON the frapking prlS'less.
xYrcl 'rI N(3-laA.