The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-02-01

|
johnson. outside of First precinct: ct:.....:...5.5s3
johnson, at First precinct, 3o3, minus ST.. 312
| Plus two, who voted for knight also.
5,sa7
| Deduct Knights vote 1862
Johnson,s majority. ............ So
SUMMARY OF CoNTEsTEE's TESTIMONY.
The sitting member charged that in The
various wards some 28S illegal negro votes
were cast for Knight. There was a great
deal Of evidence tending to prove the charge
as to very large portion OF this number,
canvassers who visited the wards testifying
| that many negroes had voted who did not
| live ln the wards where they were register
| ed, and who could not be found ut their &C.
credited residences or elsewhere. Also, that
| votes had been cast under the names Of some
| negroes who were dead, or who had long
since moved away. 1t was not shown, how
| ever, except in few instances, that these
| had removed from their wards for more than
thirty days, and though it is hardly probable
| that so many removals were Immediately be-
| fore the election, when voters are more
careful as TO preserving their votes than at
| other times, the committee could not take an
| illegality for granted, all the presumptions
| being until rebutted In favor Of Innocence
and of the legality of the proceedings.
WERE ALL THE NEGRO VOTES FOR KNIGHT?
| Your committee were also Of opinion that
| it would be going too far 10 assume. in the
absence ofmere definite testimony, that all the
| illegal negro votes were cast for Knight, and
that it would be impracticable to divide them
in any definite proportion between knight
and johnson.
The compact between Knight and Starke
and the Republican Committee is referred to
| In the report, and the committee say And it
is true, also, that the political affiliations of
voter have often been admitted as evidence
of the nature of bis vete. But notwith-
standing the weight of these considerations,
which, were they accepted by the Senate,
would greatly enlarge General johnson g
majority, they are not to our minds conclu-
sive, IS we deem il better in all cases to re.
quire more definite aud satisfactory proof
Therefore, out Of the 26S illegal votes
charged to have been cast for Knight we
! have only rejected as clearly illegal six-to
wit, these OF Kinney, Mann, Kemp, Tyler,
Richard Williams (wbo assumes the name of
Randolph Williams), and Otway BraXton-
and these have been already deducted from
Knight in our computation. Giving Knight
the benefit of all the rest Of the challenged
negro vote, still General johnson would be
| elected.
THE VOTES NOT DIsPRovED.
| 1t is plain from the analysis of the testi-
mony which has been presented that in any
aspect Of the case it appears that General
johnson was elected to O seat in this body,
prooided one thing be true; and that is, pro.
uided that the bslots in the box certified and
credited to him, and which no legal testimony
| has challenged, should be returned and
| counted in his favor. This is now the crucial
| question to be considered, and the commit
tee, after full deliberstion, have concluded
that this ought to be done-indeed, that they
are bound by every principle OF law and
Justice to do it.
In reporting this result of their delibera.
tious to the Senate they now proceed to state
doctrines of law and the state of facts which
have impelled them to deliver this judg.
ment.
THE POSITION OF THE COMMITTEE.
The committee recognize what all must
concede, that they sit in double capacity
First, as judges, under the solemn SANCTION
of their oaths, to declare the law; and,
second, as jurors under the law, to Judge OF
the facts to which the law must be applied.
The whole subject Of the alleged frauds al
l. Tile lTSl III cChSisoh w a. "a AZ S'''S
| rstely discussed, and the committee say
l.It is undoubtedly true that when officer;
of election are directly impeached as cheats
and perjurers their certificates 60 for naught
and if the extent of their fraud cannot bt
measured the whole precinct at which they
, acted must be cast out. And the same prin
ciple applies, indeed, when fraud has beer
committed by outside parties; but there II
, this distinction to be observed between ON
cial and eXtraneous fraud that when officer:
are proved to have acted fraudulently it is tt
be presumed, until the contrary is shown
, that the result was affected" Fraud
+ when applied to an officer of election" says
, the Supreme Court OF Appeals Of New York
in People rs. Cook e \. Y. Reports, 67)
means an illegal and wrongful act purpose
ily committed" Look at the testimony o
Walden, and let the question be asked, Ha!
, any illegal or wrongful act been shown K
have been done by any Of the officers of cleo
: ton and if 80, has 1t been shown that it wa!
purposely committed: Can any fair mint
fail to answer both questions iR the mega
tive:
PRINCIPLES APPLIED TO TIE FACTS.
Two general and universslly-recognizet
: principles as sslutsry in supporting the eS
pressed will of the people, as they are sount
In logic, are applicable to this state OF tat
, testimony: First, that in all cases in Whtcf
the fraud alleged is not fixed upon the ofhcer
} Of election Tue burden of proof is on tht
party affirming it, to show that the result
was affected by it; and, second, that ever
where it is she wn that the officers OF election
!, did commit a fraud, the declared will OF The
. people should not be set aside, provided tina
the returns may be deciphered and the result
arrived at with o reasonable degree OF Ger
tainty.
II. Supporting the first proposition W.
have not only considerations of reason which
carry conviction OF its wisdom to fair mind
but authorities of the highest dignity, which
inderse and commend it.
(See II La, Augustin oS. EgglestoD; Peo
pie es Cicott, 16 Mich, 325; Howard d
Cooper, Congressional Cases 1864, page Isl
McDaniers case, Brightley's cases, Jud'
kin's Us. Hill, 90 N. a., 141.] There are
many quotations given by the committee sus
tanning their positi On.
The case of Wasl,burn as. VOORHEES, (Con
gressioual Cases 1867 to 1871, p. s4) has beer
| much relied on by oLtestant 1t will be seer
that the committee in that case threw ou
three precincts where there were discrepan'
cies of 27, so, and 20 70 tes respectively, moi
| because of these discrep aneies, but because
there was additional eyi, dence in each case
! showing, in their Judgment, corruption ID tne
officers themselves; while in anotnef precanct,
where the contestant proved tnirty'slx votes
and was accredited with only sWenty-four,
there being no additional evidence OF trahos