The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-02-01
votes returned and the.tal,.lists, OF THE |


be held to have that effect, no election could
be sustained, and every one in the United
States could be defeated and destroyed; for
there Is probably scarcely precinct Ia the
whole country where discrepancies OF this
character may not be found, or proved to
| exist"
| CORRECT PRINCIPLE OF Law.
Couceding that the officers Of election did
commit a fraud, If there still remains any
! means Of ascertaining the result it should
be maintained and upheld. vide cases Of
| The People Us. Bates, II Michigan Reports;
Biddle rs. Wing, reported in Clarke & Halls
Cases: the contested election cases Of 1868
before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
| In the latter case Justice Thompson deliV-
cred 40 opinion, which was afterwards
| adopted unanimously by that tribunal as
correct principle of law. He said, "There
is nothing which will Justify the striking out
Of an entire division bat an inability to de.
cipher the returns, or showing that not
single legal vote was polied, or that no cleo
! ton was legally held
These are principles fixing clear rules of
law for judicial guidance, and We know O. nc
case which repudates them as unsounG.
THE RESULT.
Have we basis for ascertaining the re-
suit! Holding these principles 10 mind, the
committee asked themselves the questions
Is it impossible to ascertain from the legal
testimony adduced for whom the majority Of
votes was cast:: "Can ge decipher the
returns in the light of the testimony, and,
separating the Illegal from the legal votes
cast. ind a basis for ascertainfbg with rea-
sonable certainty the RESULT" The commit
tee were unanimous, in considering these
questions, in expressing the belief that Gen.
eral johnson was elected to seat in this
body; but minority thought that while the
evidence preponderated on that side, it was
not sufficiently clear and satisfac-
tory to predicate judicial opinion
upon. But your committee thought
that while absolute certainty rs to
the result could not be declared the evidence
so greatly preponderated in favor of their
belief that it appeared with reasonable GER
tainty that the sitting member was elected.
They thought that the evidence of the ballots
! themselves was patent TO this effect, and they
| will state the facts upon which their iudg-
ment was arrived at. The ballots were pro-
duced on motion of the contestant. They
we're 402 in number--thirteen for knight,
sos for the regular Conservative ticket, in
Guiding johnson, and seyenty.two described
by the contestants counsel as "folded alike,
and clean and ne,e." These ballots were
headed Independent ticket" but bore the
names of the Conservative nominees. Point.
ing to these, counsel coutended that the
striking difference between these ballots
and the residue, which had every as
pect of similitude about them, indi.
Gated that the seventy.two were the
fraudulent ballots introduced into the
box, and that the remainder were the
honest ballots deposited by the electors.
While we do not perceive such striking diff.
| ference in the ballots as was supposed, yet If
the change of every one of the alleged fraud
uIent ballots from Johnson's to Knights
side affected the result we should have rem
defed different report. But if contestants
| theory be true to its fartbest limit, and
every one of these seveHty-two ballots were
substituted for Knight ballot, johnson
| would still be elected. Knights vote out
side of First precinct, and deducting bis six
illegal votes. would be 5,7Sl; add the y and
Ii in the box, So; Knights vote, $500 !;
Johnson's outside vote, 5,533; vote ct the
| precinct, 393-minus, IS, 308: plus 2, who
voted for Knight also, 2, 1898; deduct
| Knights vote, $500; Johnson's majority,
27.
| CONCLUSION.
Your committee cannot be insensible to
the fact that the case which they have tried
has aroused the btterest prejudices and bick.
erings that party rivalry could excite, and
they only regret that it will not be deter.
mined in an atmosphere less impregnated
with the passion OF factions. Aud while
they condemn and despise that partisan bias
which too often misleads committees aud as.
sembies to count 10 those candidates who
sympathzed with their political opinions
when the people have rejected them at
the polls, they, at the same time.
more heartily condemn those who,
fearful that suspicion may attach to
themselves, should shrink from declaring
their true judgments and abnegate their
manhood as men aud their independence as
Judges. Whatever may be the fact, and what
soeYer may be the murmurs Of the street and
the charges Of partisans not sustained by the
| evidence, the record shows, in our Judgment,
and the light Of these precedents which, as
ChiefJustice Marshall says, "have matureG
by The wisdom Of ages" that Bradley T.
johnson received i majority Of the votes cast
by the electors OF Richmond city and Henrico
county on the I'd of November and they
therefore submit the following resolutions,
and recommend their adoption by the Sen.
ate:
RESOLVED, /, That William c. Knight is
not entitled to seat in this body.
.Resolued, 2. That Bradley r. johnson Is
entitled to a seat in this body as one Of the
senator's representing the Seventh senatorial
district. composed of the city of Richmond
and county OF Henrlco.
One Of the committee joins IN the ABOVE
conclusions for reasons different from those
stated.
| Senator CIaugbtOn's Position.
Mr.. Claughton presented paper concur
ring in the report of the committee IN its re-
commendation that General johnson De con-
tirmed in his seat. but holding that "a voter
in this State cannot be permitted to testify
for whom he voted: 1st. Because the essen
tial and fundamental principles of the ballot
system would be violated by this invasion OF
the secrecy of that system. ID. Because the
highest considerations of public policy forbid
the admission Of such testimony. Sd. Be-
cause the Constitution and statutes OF this
State prohibit voters from disclosing how
they vote"
| The Reports.
| When the report of the committee was
presented to the Senate the question was
asked by Mr.. Cochran who had signed
it, and Major Daniel promptly an.
swered that it was signed by the chairman
| for the committee. The Lieutenant-Goy-
ernor said that was in accordance with parlia-
mentary law and the usage Of the Senate. 1t
is understood. however, that Messrs. Daniel,
| Marshall, Finpey, and Claughton agreed as