The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-11-12
2 ~ 3-tF s.4Isf =
MR. WrsE,s POSITION


be Mr. Wise's admission. ,ss /, +,
Mr.. WIsE's POSITION. S, I, -. IS
| Mr. Wise explained his position. This is
not a; contested elec,ion, but atsial FOR felony.
a criminal punishment is denounced against
the offence committed, and yet they. were
told that they could not present their evil
dence here, because itconld not,be donein a
contested-election case. His position was
that the evidence was admissible here,
though not in contested election. 5i@ssi q
Mr. Wise controyerted the argument of
Ar. Royal, and maintained that the law does
not compel voter. TO keep his vote secret,
especially when be, is writhiDg under. q
wrong. It IS his duty to the public to tell
how he voted in order to punish fraud. His
public duty oyercomes bis personal privilege,
II the voter cannot tell how be voted, the
public is: put at the mercy offraudufent
Mr.. wise proceeded to review Mr.. Roy
ALPS argument and to criticise 1t by piece
meal. He Indignantly repelled the statement
that to allow the voter to disclose how he
voted would be to encourage thieves and
perjurers. He claimed that 1t was the fault
Of these accused if they have SO fixed the crime
upon themselves as to prevent their lawyers
from contradicting the witnesses for thepro-
secution, and said they ought to have thought
before Of how they were hemming them.
selves In. gG >. ,.@sFs ~ s'''% Z -
THE TWO CHARGES. .a,gg. -
At this point Major Stiles inquired on.
which charge the accused were being ex-
amined--on the warrant charging felony, or
on the warrant charging misdemeanor. i,
Police-Justice White responded that the
accused were now being examined on the
felony, warrant. 1t might be that the lesser
charge would be merged into the greater.
Mr.. p. Lawton, deputy clerk of the
Hustings Court, in response to the subpoena
duces tecuns, accompanied by the affidavit of
General Imboden, produced the ballots.
MAYOR srrIEs's ARGUMENT. ''''.
Major stiles, in arising to discuss the al.
instability of the evidence of men as to how
they voted, alluded to the fact that as coun-
sci they had the right to avail themselves OF
all the provisions of the law. He intended
TO do it, and should do it even though as
counsel he was convinced, as he was not,
that his clients we're guilty. MIR. Macdougal
had as fair name 10 this community as him
self, and he didn't believe that charge of
this kind would stick to bimself, and didn't
believe that it would stick to Macdougal.
Major Stiles thought Mr. Royals position
| was right ; that the voter could not testify as
to the character of his vote; that parole tes.
| timony could not be introduced; that 1t is
| the policy of the law to maintain inviolable
the secrecy of the ballot-box. Further, he
argued, there is no section Of the statute to
sustain Mr.. Wise's yew-the whole theory
of elections is against it. The law points at
no crime to be established by going back Of
| the votes except in the case ofillegal voting.
Mejor Stiles addressed himself with elo.
quence and ability to the proposition that if,
as was admitted, the testimony Of voters as
| to how they voted cannot be taken even In
cOntested.election cases, 1t is preposterous
that it should be taken in prosecutions for
felony. -7--
aR. cABELL SURPRISED. ...., --a
MIR. Cabell confessed that he was surprised
| that this question had been raised in this
| court. While admitting that counsel for de-
| fence had every right to avail themselves of
the techpicaliLies of law to defend their cli-
ents, he thought it ill comported with their
yaupts upon the street and their publicly.ex.
pressed desire to ss prick this bubble"
Mr.. Cabell claimed it was Hot true that the
| defence could not contradict the testimony
of voters. They could prove that the voters
were not men to be believed, or that they had
made different statements. "
| He agreed with the gentleman on the
other side as to the strength and validity of
Judge Guigon's opinion, and as to the infu-
ence it ought to have upon the mind of the
Police Justice. He, heweVer, would read
paragraph from the opinion Of Judge Gu-
gon showing that while Judge Guigon de-
/ eided that they could mol 60 into the vote
| in contested-election cases, it could be gone
| into in the criminal cases against which the
law had denounced penalty.
| There had been fraud perpetrated at that
precinct and everybody knew it, and the cri-
minals ought to be brought to justice even if
| il cost the State ten thousand dollars, or any
other sum.
| The latter remark was made by Mr.. Ca
bell in response to something Major STILES
had said about the cost Of these proceedings.
MIR. Cabell said he was there as the officer
| of the law. His sympathies were with the
| gentlemen who had gotten the certificates,
but he was satisfied that fraud had been
committed, and it was bis duty to bring the
criminals to punishment The trouble he
apprehended was in being able to put bis
hand upon the shoulder of the guilty one
and say, ".Thou art the man !" 1T
| JUDGE oULD's SPEECH. -
Judge Ould; on behalf of the accused,
closed the discussion. His speech was q
| mastery one, and was delivered in the most
| pleasing style Of oratory. BE reviewed the
liaw and authorities; bearing upon the dis.
uuted point, and showed how by public
policy certain persons are excluded from the
| privileges of the witness box. Wives can.
tsnot testify for or against their husbands, or
| husbands for or against their wives, no mat.
1 ter what may. be the consequences or what
| the crime. Although the husband and
wife may come into court and upon
bended knees supplicate the court, the
court cannot hear either against the 0tner.
Public policy demands their exclusion from
the witness stand. It is best for the whole
comiaunity, best for the whole pubic,
1 though crime may sometimes escape unpun;
1 ished. Judge OuId also referred TO counsel
i and client, priest and penitent, who were
privileged from testifying. The books may
| he searched in vain, be said, from beginning
Re end to show one single sentence toproVe
/ that there must: be less evidence to gain Q
/ verdict in q civil than to convict in acriminal
4 case. He went on to say that secrecy was not
| the privilege of the voter, but the privilege
of the community, and the voter, could NOT
waive it unless he brought the assent OIL
avery other voter-eyen IL then. The priest
!. r,ot allowed to speak until the penitens
oivss himsieaye.t The same is the case with
1 Counsel and client. nlblic policy demands
that these persons be excluded from the W.T. ~
ness, stand, and the pnetice is as old as civil
E Although crime msg run rampant, i there
he a fixed rule Of law That excludes a Wltness
rom sestifying, the mere reason thal crime me
viii run rampant is no reason the witness
should be put upon the stand .,--,2c.- !.
] Judge Ould thought the witness ,cenia se
asked ANYTHING except for whom ne voted
ANYTHING that did not involve the rights anu