The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-12-14
The Maedougal Election Case.
JUDGE GUIGoN DECIDES THAT a VOTER
CAIN DISCLOSE HOW HE VOTED.
The 'Trfas.

=
The Trfas.
.----
4 The knowledge that the election caseat
would probably come up In the Hastings
Court yesterday morning astrscted o very
large crowd TO witness the NV GO sdiHgs, ard /
great interest was maHifested in all that trans.
lied there during the day. AacdoGgalf
and MaTXbausen, who were ildges Of elee.t
BON, Twill be remembered, were charged I
With ahstractipg ballots from the bsliot-boxt
at the First precinct in Jefferson Ward.
.$ss TIE jury. ;si3 5ss7
Nearly all OF the day was spent In the /
court IN endeayoriDg to find jury who had /
not formed or expressed sn opinion, and IL |
wss not until just before s o'clock that this /
Was accomplished and The prisoner put upon I
bis trial. The jury as sworn was as fellows:
w. JsScott, Ssmuei Raeland, ! Marx Mittel. |
dorfer, George a. Lathrsp, j. p. Swords, |
George w. Warren, ~Joba Il. Peek, w, IA.
Gordon, w. B., .,CoHrsneysX X. 8. Carlton, e.. |
n. d. Clark, and w M.Jenes.
i, THE W1rEAssRs. *
The first witness examined was W. P.
Lawton, deputy clerk OF the Hastings Court,
who testified TO the fact CT having receiyedj
the psllbooks and box said TO contain the
ballots.
Mr.. Andrew Jinkens, clerk Of the court,
was next examined to prove that Mr. Mac
dougal was one OF the judges Of election at]
the First precinct In jefferson Ward.
MIR. Walden, one Of the. judges of election
at that precinct, was next examined. He
gave In, evidence which has already been
published In this paper, and insisted that he
saw no evidence of fraud during the day
while be was there.
Mr.. George BowdeD, one of the clerks,
testified that he did not see Marxhausen re-.
ceiye any of the ballots, but thought 1t was
done by Macdougal and Walden.
The registration.b books were next pro-
duced in court, and the witness asked to ex-,
anime them and state how many voters,
white aud colored, were registered in the
First precinct, Jefferson Ward, and also how
| many voted.
;Mr. Bowden then examined the books.
which occupied some time, and announced
that there were two hundred and sixty-6ve
| colored voters registered In, that precinct.
WHO WERE REGIsTIRED.
He stated further. that according to the
books there were Ga white registered voters
ia that precinct, and.297 had voted. BY a
further reference to the books be stated that
the number of votes cast altogether was
4O2; therefore, if the 297 white voters were
subtracted from the 4o2 IL would show, &C.
cording to the books, that 105 negroes had
voted at that precinct.
WHAT JUDGE GUIaoN THINKS ABOUT IT.
The next witness called was Dir. B. 81.
Nash. no lived at the Exchange Hotel. He
was asked how he voted. BE said that he
was willing to answer the question.
At this point counsel for Macdougal made
objtc ion. They contended that 1t was not
competent for voter TO disclose secret bal.
lot that he had cast, ~. t1G
The witness having been asked II he was
willing to testify as 10. how he had voted,
and baYipg replied in the affirmative, was
asked, For whom did you vote and counsel
for prisoner ohjscting, Judge Guigon said IN
substance that he had examined the autEori-
ties offered by counsel in their argument
upon this question, and such others as ne
himself had been able to look up, and bad
given the subject the attentive consideration
its importance justified that he was clearly
of opinion, both upon principle and authori-
ty, that such testimony was not only admls-
sibIe, but essential to the purposes OF public
Justice, and In accordance with public policy.
In New York, Michigan, and PennsylYa-
MIA the question has been distinctly decided
and in very numerous cases decided in other
States the question does not seem even to
have been made, although the statements OF
the cases show that such evidence was adj
mitted, evidently, without question or dis.
pute.
Counsel had also referred to q decision by
the Judge of this court In the Gontested-elec-
ton case Of Ellyson us. Chasoon, In 1870.
The question in that case was different from
this. In this case the court has to decide
merely whether a witness willing to testify
how he voted may be allowed TO do so. In
that case the question was whether the court
could 90 into the examination Of the ques.
ton as 10 how large number OF challenged
voters voted, not by their own examination
on oath, but by evidence of facts, circum.
stances, and hearsay statements; and this
court held that such an examination could
not be gone into "except To the ascertain:
|'mept and administration Of the criminal
penalties the law denouDces," !" thus reserving
the question now before the court.
At that time there were only TWO reported
decisions on this question Il People us. Pease,
9th New York, and People uS. Cicott, 16th
Michigan-be of which were decided by
divided courts. The decisioo;i In New York
has been followed up Dy IA unanImoGs uCei
sion of the Court Of Appeals of New York
People Us. Thatcher, 30 New York, 625, de,
ctded last year-in which that court decided
not only that such evidence vas admlsslpse'
but also ,intimated that&a voter would he re.
oaired TO disclose for.Wbon he voted. All
the industry OF counsel has not supplied
them with single textbook in which there
is denial of this prineipl., and my own ex-
animation, which has been careful and ex.
tended, has been without avail In this re-
spect.
The objections of eounsel based upon pub.
lie policy were Ingenious, but are no answer
to the proposition tbat unless such evidence
ia admitted the election OF candidates ls de-
pendent upon the jldgeso election, and not
upon the will Of the voters. J.
Gel.2 M OTHER WITNESSES.
After Judge Guigon had decided the mat.
ter, Msjor Nash testified that he had voted
for Knight, Starke, AID tWortham.
Messrs. T. Roberts Baker, D. w. Bohonon,
b. r., Lipscomb, B. IS. Rsbesson, j.. G.
Shields, C. WalthaI,, ST., James rH. Gardner,
4 r. nntIS s,xuffr NO SS,oa.