National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1876-07-18
PLAT VS.. GOODE.

In the House of Representatives yester-
day Judge Brown, of Kansas, presented
the report of the majority of the Commit
tee on Elections in the contested seat from
the Second Virginia district in favor of
seating Mr.. Plat, and Mr.. Blackburn, of
Kentucky, minority report from the
same committee favoring the retention of
Mr.. Goode? There are some remarkable
features in the minority report. 1t rejects
the navy yard vote in precincts which
gave Platt majority, and counts it in pre-
cincts giving Goode majority. 1t rejects
as illegal twenty votes in Surry county
which were registered four days before the
election, when only eight of those so regis
tered are shown by the evidence to have
voted, Mr.. Blackburn taking the ground
that the fact of their having registered is
presumptive proof that they voted on the
day of election. 1t rejects seventeen votes
in Sussex county cast by men voting on
transfers, whom the judges of election,
themselves Democrats, swear had been in
the county more than three months next
preceding the election, and were legal
voters. But all these reflections failing to
give Goode a majority, the minority, in
seeming desperation, proceed to the re-
markable and unprecedented act in the
American Congress of throwing out the
entire vote of Rives and Bland townships,
in Prince George county, on the frivolous
pretext that the returns were not sealed
when being carried from the voting pre-
cincts to the office of the county clerk.
There is no allegation of fraud or that the
returns were in any way tempered with,
and the sole reason for rejection is that the
judges of election failed to put sealing wax
on the outside of the packages. In the two
townships there were six judges who had
the entire control of the election. OF these
five were Democrats and active partisan
friends of Mr.. Goode. They all testify
under oath, when called by Mr. Goode to
the stand, that the election was fairly and
honestly conducted; that the votes were
legally cast by legal voters precisely as re-
turned; that at the close Of the polls, hav-
ing no sealing wax, and in their lakewood
locality being unable to obtain any, they
honestly tried to do the best they could;
that they strung the votes on string, as
required by law, and in one precinct put
them in tin box and locked it; in the
other put them in paper bag and sewed
it up. From each precinct Democratic
judge carried them to the office of the
Democratic county clerk on the day of
election, and they were counted by four
Democratic commissioners on the day pre-
scribed by law. The poll are now
in the committee room, and contain the
name of every voter who voted on the
day of the election, and they correspond
exactly with the number of votes returned
by the judges as having been cast.
The history of Congress furnishes no
precedent for rejection of votes under
these circumstances. On the contrary,
there is one unbroken line of precedent
against it. And such a principle once
established by law there could never more
be fair election. No candidate would be
safe, no matter what his majority, for none
can fail to have somewhere in his district
officers of election opposed to him. Let it
be understood that mere act of omission
on the part of one of these hostile officers
can vitiate and destroy the entire vote of a
county, and it would become a simple
question as to which party could make the
most omissions, aud a matter of no conse-
quence as to which got the most votes
The action of the chairman of the com |
mittee, Mr.. Harris, of Virginia, in signing
the minority report excites much comment
in Congress among men of both parties.