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

Senate the report OF Iue uIuoiity '" ~"
Committee on Privileges and Elections IN the
case of knight us. johnson. The grounds
of the petitioners claim to the seat are staIeo'
and the minority say: We are OF the opin'
ion tha, the whole contest will be found to
,urn uDon the ballots cast at the First pre-
cipct of Jefferson Ward and the returns
therefor: for while both contestant and in
cutnbent attempt to show fraud and Illegal
voting in other wards, or collusion and mis-
conduct of registrars at other precincts in the
ci,v. vet we do not think anything is proven
out>ide OF said First precinct with sufficient
certainty to modify or change the result 10
any particular. Now, these questions arise {:
ist. Was there fraud at the First precinct
of Jefferson Ward? If so, to what extent
Cd. What is the consequence of such fraud,
| if established:
| According to the returns oil the o1ncers
| the contestant received but thirteen votes at
| this precinct, while 391 are returned ier the
| incumbent. To establish fraud, as charged
by contestant, the depositions of large
number of witnesses, both white and colored,
were taken, who sWorc they voted for
knight and not for Johnson-a sufficient
number, he contends, to give him majority
of all the votes cast in the election.
ISCCMBEHT'S OBJECTION.
The incumbent objects to this evidence on
the ground that it Is incompetent for a voter
to testify, even voluntarily, for whom he
voted in the election. He claims that this
testimony being excluded, there is no evi.
deEce IN the record to prove fraud, and
therefore the returns must be taken as true.
| Can this objection be sustained? We think
| NOT. We have been unable to find anything 3
| 1nyxv nr n
| or auv other State TO support such posi-
| tIop. On the contrary, we think it will be
| found that the current of precedents Of legs-
Iatiye bodies and the decisions Of the courts
on this subject ure uniformly against such
position. We do not believe this objection
can be supported either by reason or by con-
| sideraton Of public policy.
SECRECY OF TIE BALLOT.
For, in our opinion, to establish such q
| precedent would be equivalent to suppress
| Ing all inquiry into aH election where the
voting was by ballot in which fraud Is the
| ground of contest. 1t would, indeed, be 10
| transfer the election from the honest voters
| to the corrupt judges who might hold the
| election.
In support of these views the minority
| make citations from Reed Us. kneas, from
| Brightley's Leading Cases, page 366, and
| People as. Tbacker-55 New York Reports
| From the above reasoning, aud from the
authorities cited, we conclude that voter
| has the right to testify how he voted in an
election. In this case all the witnesses tes-
| tilted voluntarily, and not under compul.
| sion.
MAcDorGAL's PRECINCT.
This testimony being competent, as we
think, to establish fraud, we next inquire
| whether, from the evidence submitted, frau0
| has been proven at the First precinct OF jet
fersoa Ward; and if so, to what extent. The
| returns from this precinct show that of the
| ballots cast, johnson received 39l, and
Knight received Is.
The witnesses introduced by contestant
| prove that there were Of whites and coored
| who read their ballots and voted for knight
and not for Johnson, ut this precinct
| Whites, 80: colored, 90. Total number who
| read their ballots, Sc.
THE CoLoRED VOTERS.
| Besides these there are fifty (50) colored
voters who could not read, but sWore they
voted for Knight and not for Johnson. Some
Of the latter swore they had their ballots
read to them by those in whom they had
confidence. Some, that they received their
ballots from one Pat. Smith (colored), who
like them, could not read, but testified that
be gave them ballots obtained by him from
j John S. Wise, who iu turn testified that be
. gave Independent tickets to said Pat. Smith
to be distributed at that precinct; and Others
that they got tickets from their employers or
friends, who they believed would not deceive
them. While we do not think it is legally
proven that these fifty electors who could no
read voted for the contestant, yet their les
timony tends to prove that they did vote fo
him and not for johnson, and to this eXten
4 they strengthen the evidence Of the titty.si!
(56) who read their ballots and sWore the.
4 voted for knight and not for johnson. Al
Of these witnesses, If they are to be believed
prove fraud, where only thirteen are accord
ed TO the contestant. But this is not all
Lawsoa Nunnslly, a respectable white wit
ness, testites that he wrote bis ballot through
out, aud that he voted for Knight and no
for Johnson. On inspecting the ballots from
that precinct, which were produced befor
the committee, no such ballot as Nunuall
Il describes is found among them. This Soe
to show that his ballot was fraudulently alb
stracted by some one.
THE INDEPENDENT TICKET.
ksgain, when the ballots were inspected b,
the committee over seventy were fount
headed Independent Ticket with the name
Of Johnson, Tanner, and WorthaE upoi
them, all so uniformly folded and so fre
: from blot or stain as 10 preclude the posi-
b iity OF an accidental c. Incidence.
IT appears from the evidence Of Val
den, the only judge Of election ut tina
precinct examined, that ardent spirit
, OF different kinds were introduced 'durln:
: the morning into the roo@ where tie elcc
ton was held, and were drank during th
!, daY by the judges, all OF which we conceiv
to be in express violation fiaw- This wit
ness confesses that he drank too much durin
the day, and WAS st one tisEe under its in
gueEce. He states that he was at times ab
sent from the eiectionroom- as were tb
other Judges, and that while thuS absent, b
/ drunk at Marxhausen's, bar-keeper, who, i
scealS, was ieloEJudge.
ABSENCE OF sauNNALLr>s BiLLoc.
Now. when We consider that tisty-si!
raeu, white and eoored, swear posip.Tei
that they read their ballots, and that che
voted for Knight aad not for GehnSon, AM
tfty others, who eaaaot read, but swear the
voteli. he same way, giving reasons why pae
came to that conclusion; waea we fn'
badges of fraud attaching to taE parttoG4s
preeines, as in the absence OF SunEaig
| written ballot, aud bg the seventS-odd 'Eal
lots. uniformly folded. free froG stains O.
biots. which, on inspection, have every ar
pearance OF having been frauduleahg insert
ed ioto ,the ballot.boxs when, added IL
all tbs, we find that the Judge;
Themselves were Yioisting the election
law be allowing liquors to be brought into