The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-11-16
NEWS ABoUrTHE LATE UAmPAIes
DEPoSITIONs in THE KNIGHT.
JOHNSON ELECTION CASE.
A REpUsL1cAN LEADER's EVIDENCE.
INTERESTING LETTERS PRoDucED.
The Bargasn: with Hormand Smith
/ 81 $50 Explained. u. ..,t
&c &c., E&c.

| test the seat In the Senate to which General
Bradley r. johnson was recently elected,
was commenced in the office Of Mr. DANES
Neeson yesterday morning before Robert %,
Ward. notary public. Colonel Knight YVES
represented Coy. Mr. James Neeson ana MT
John S. Wise, and General Johnson by
Judge Ould, Major, Stiles, and Mr.. Royall!
Lawson Nunnally was the first witness in.
troduced. ~. rr,,.:.,
The defendant. by counsel, objected to pro
ceeding to take testimony under the notice
served on him by Colonel Knight indicating
lbis intention to contest defendants seat in
the Senate, because said notice does not dis.
close any sufficient legal grounds Of contest
4 PROTEST.
Mr.. Lawson NunnalIy was the first witness
sworn. When asked for whom he voted
counsel for defendant objected to his answer
ing IT.
"1. Because it is not @ lawful question to
be put to this or any other witness. The
| Constitution of the State requires an election
for senator to be by ballot, an essential ingre'
dient of which is secrecy. This privilege
of secrecy belongs not only to the voter
who is interrogated, but to every voter
who voted at the precinct where the
witness voted. The right to call one
witness to disclose how he voted involves
the right to call every voter, and thus it will
be easily ard readily found out not only bow
the witnesses voted, but also how those who
are not witnesses, or those who refused to
| testify, did vote. We protest that no ques-
| tion can be put to a witness the answer to
| which tends to disclose how others or any
other voted. The objection does not 60 to
| the competency of the witness, but to the
question, rpropounded. The constitutional
provision of the ballot, which includes Sc
crecy cannot be invaded directly orindirectIy.
Even if the witness could waive his own
| privilege, he cannot invade the privilege OF
the others who voted with him at bis pre-
cinct. His disclosure OF; his OWE vote tends
| to the disclosure of 1.-The votes of all Others,
and If similar examination is extended to
all other parties, necessarily makes such a
disclosure. We do not mean to assert that
alleged frauds atelections may not be inyesti-
gated by all: proper methods, but we do mean
| to say that even fraud cannot be proved or
disclosed by an examination Of witnesses as
to how they voted any more than it could be
proved by hearsay testimony: 10 attempt.
| ing to prove any alleged fraud by such testi-
mony the privilege Of inviolable secrecy
belonging of right to all other voters
at the precinct is invaded. The privilege of
| the ballot, with its attendant secrecy, is 9
constitutional one, and cannot be invaded
even By the Legislature. But 40 such inya-
| sion has been attempted, and there is nothing
| in the law which either requires orby true
| construction permits voter to answer as to
bis votes While the voter is comFetent
witness, the question, however, is one which
ought not to be put to him, and onght not
to be allowed to be answered if put. Any
alleged fraud, if committed, may be proved
by voter by any competent testimony; but
we protest that 1t cannot be proved by any
such testimony as is sought here to be in
troduced.
"2. We object and except to this question
being put to or answered by this or any
other witness, because the statute Of Vtr.
ginia regarding contested elections admits OF
only two grounds of contesting the votes Of
individual eectors-Viz.: That the vote of a
qualified voter has been rejected, or the vote
of one not legally qualified has been re.
ceiyed by the judge of election; and Del.
tber of these requisite and indispensable
grounds for inquiry and contesting the vote
Of the witness has been laid"
VOTES FOR KNIGHT AND sTARKE.
Mr.. Nunnally, in response to the question
for whom he voted, replied that he voted for
Knight, Starke, and Workman, and wrote
his own ballot. &.
John W. Smith voted for Knight, starke,
and Normand Smith. -.
Commodore A. A. Porter voted for Knight
and Starke only for senators. ..,.., D.
B. W. Russell voted for Knight, Starke,
and Smith.
D. ". Bohonon, q member of the Repub-
lican Committee, voted for Knight, Starke,
and Smith.
All of these voted at the First precinct in
Jefferson Ward; read their ballots, and saw
them dropped 10 the box. .. .r
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN KNIGHT AND MORTON.
In the course Of the examination Of Cap
tain Bohonon the following letters were pro-
duced in evidence: u ,.s g.l go
REPUBLICAN, Executive COMMITTEE OF VA.,l
RICHMOND, VA, September ID, 1870. }
Colonel ". C. ;Kaight
Dear Sir,-The prevalent and eutspoken
dissatisfaction expressed by very many OF
our best citizens against the legislative ticket
lately nominated by the Conservative party
in this city and Henrico county induces me
to approach you on the subject of fanother tick !
ct. The Republican party has no candidates
to put into the field, but as citizsns we are
ready to unite with others in getting good
men for the Legislature. If, then, you will
announce yourself as q candidate, and select
two other men for TIE senatorial ticket to
run with you-say tWomen, one like George
A. Hundley for this city, and Colonel
Holladay for thef county, can and 40
pledge you that the Republicans will unitedly
support you. Should you consent to become
q candidate theg formation Of ticket for the
House of Delegates may become subject Tor
considerations by yourself and friends. The
Republicans} in this, however, can only
say if you give us good men we will help
elect thenL gn =. { s.... .e1 .f27s - VI,
If youJ become candidate, as desired, you
are at liberty to use this letter amongst your
friends in such manner rs you may deem
and proper. If you are not can
didate please consider this as strictly conf
deats4la @
/ Hoping to receive favorable reply at an
early hour, ,..,o.gllg .s
II am, colonel your obediept servant,
-.@iI<t s-ss,1 ALFRED NORTON
Chairman Republican Stale Executive Com
I mittee. @}sss,
Z Colonel Knights response to Judge Nor
ton was as follows:
~ ~ T.. R1cHMorD STcvE CoMPANY, 80,
RaeHAosD, Y A., September 16, 1876. 5
.yudqe Alfred Morton, President Republican
Erecuti1e Committee:
tSir,-I feel complimented by your com.
ruunieatien ip the sense that you can discard
party lines and look to the material interests
of our city aud State.
Whilst Ithink. ipjnstiee has been done nae
and the true men of the Conservative party
in the recent primary election, am upWil-
ling to assumesat position of antagonism by
q proclaimed cau didacy. By my card Of the
f1th instant I have. left the matter In the
hands OF the voters Of the district. E.
y eaa do no more. 2.2-