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

johnson case was presented 10 tne senate yes
terday by Major John w. Daniel, the chair
man.
Two preliminary questions were presented
to the committee. The petitioner, Colonel
W. c, knight, represented that John A.
Lacy, registrar at the Second precinct OF
! .Icfttrson Ward, and James =. Sharpe, regis
trar Of the Second precinct Of Marshall Ward,
had suppressed and concealed the regstra-
ion lists. and prevented him from furnish
ing the sitting member with full list Of ille-
Gal and fraudulent votes, as required by law,
and AZ ked that they be summoned before the
committee and compelled TO produce their
books, and that further time should be
granted the petitioner to show fraud Ia the
election.
The committee were of opinion that they
would depart from the spirit asd policy OF
our Code, if, indeed, they did not exceed
their constitutional powers, In granting this
request.
SECRECY OF TIE BALLOT.
The next question presented for deter
mination by the committee was whether or
not the depositions OF voters to show how
they voted at the election could be admitted
as evidence. The committee say:
1t is abborrent to our sense Of justice to
contemplate the hopeleSsneSs OF the people
against fraud if the theory of exclusion were
adopted. aud the tact that few may some
times suffer by having their votes disclosed
should not lead us to deliver over q whole
population, tied hand and foot and gagged,
into the hands of few officers who have
BETRAYED them. These views will be found
sustained in the following cases: kneags
| Case, y Parsons, $50; Brightley's Cases, 2Sl !;
| Thompson and Ewing, Brewster, %; Lo.
cust Ward Election, Penn, l.. }. 34l ;
Read &c, Kuea.s, 9 Parsons, 5S4; Brightley,
3C6: LYne as. Newton, Congressional
Election Cases. 522 ; Washburne oS. Voor-
hees, Congressional Election Cases, 1860
1871. page 754 See specially the language
of Judge King, Brightley, 81.
THE CASE UPoN ITS MERITS.
Having disposed of these preliminary ques'
tions, we come to the case made ln the evil
dence. The contestant charged that the
iudyes Of election at the FIRST precinct Of
Jefferson Ward falsely and fraudu|ently
| manipulated the ballots, and that whereas ne
was duly elected, the retarn was corruptly
given TO the sitting member. He claimed
| that if he be not given bis seat new election
should be ordered. The contestee denied
| the charge, and made the counter.cbarge that
some 2GS illegal votes had been cast for Knight
in the various wards Of the city; and both
parties took number Of dispositions TO sus-
| tain their respective allegations.
ORAL EVIDENCE AS TO VOTES CAST.
The contestant introduced the dispositions
of 113 witnesses for the purpose of showing
| by them for whom they voted for the Senate
| ut the First precinct in jefferson Ward. VI
these seven testified after the twenty days
| from the election hsd passed-to wit: One
white man, Cronie by name, and six blacks
Gsllatip, Pollard, Laterly, Watkins, Blown,
and Watkins. Twenty days after the election
means, in the Judgment Of the committee,
" calendar days." which include Sundays,
and not "judicial days" which would eX'
clude Sundays from the computation 0!
time. Therefore these depositions are re-
iected. Four witnesses testified that they
voted neither for Knight nor johnson.
There was one fraudulent vote under the
assumed name of l.. P. Wheat, but no evi'
deuce as TO for whom it was cast.
Washington Brown (colored) testified that
| he voted for four senators-Starke, knight,
| Wortham, and Smith. Ralph Turner (co
loredl voted, he thinks, fer five senators, ano
Evans Carter (colored), who said he coulo
"reud little but not worth anything"
| EOltU lOi ufe VI sia. luiS scetHhOhJ W.
think utterly worthless. w. A. Page is
| shown to have been an illegal voter, as is
also 0. II. Russell. No proof existing as tC
who the fraudulent vote under Wheat's name
| was cast for We cannot notice it at all. The
four votes cast for neither party, the three
cast for too many senators, and the two lille
gal votes above mentioned, must be deducted
from the votes cast for Knight and Johnson
amounting to 402, leaving 393 to be divided
between them according 10 the evidence, /
We can with discrimination do so.
Out of this 1913 votes let us see what poE
tion should be given Knight according t.
bis evidence:
Thirty-thIee white legal voters who 80.
they voted for him, 33; 80 colored men wh'
could read their ballots and who say the.
voted for him, excluding the three who Vote'
for too many senators, p. Making an aggre
gate vote for Knight of 60. Deducting tn
13 in the box, 13; and We have an excess o
i the number certified to him Of At. Stain!
the vote upon this condition Of the evidence
and we would have the following result:
| Vote for knight outside First precinct, Jeffer-
son ward. ..::..:...;;'.....;....'. '......"o,'
Vote for Knight at said preciuct.............. 81
Total for Knight. ..,.......,..............5.S4 81
y,
| Giving johnson the vote Ut that precinct
mluus knights vote--that is to say, 393
1 minus 60, plus TWO who voted for him aud
hRlght also. '.'..'''.-r...'."......'.. So
n.,,..,, n,.,,,s toto, s,si! s,s1!
And Johnsous majority yis..-<............-.... T.
Aud johnson, as hereinafter seen. proves six ille
| gal votes cast for Knight, viii III deducted frol
| Knights vote of 5. SAT leaves him 5,S4l whic
total deducted from Johnson's total OF 5.9l6
5,S4
| Makes Johnson's MAJORITY. a
| This computation is gu the ground tina
| the nineteen blacks who could neither reat
nor write, and who did not produce an,
other person to identify the nature Of thei
| ballots, are Incompetent witnesses because
| testirying as to mere matters OF hearsay: ant
| that twenty blacks who also could not read
! nor write, but who say they got their baRots
| from Pat. Smith, an old co!ared man wht
could not read nor write, and one other Wil(
got bis ticket from BelVin's stand on th'
| same footing.
HEARsAY TESTIMONY.
We will consider each class of these hear
say witnesses separately.
As to the aineteen above referred 10, who
are illiterate black men, Damed Jeter, Rober-
SOD, Russell, Young, Stewart, Knight. Bur-
nett, Russell, Berry, Hill, Jackson, Morton,
Smith, BrowD, Mitchell, Jones, jenkins,
Brisby, and johnson.
In respect to the testimony of these wit
nesses the committee had no sort of hesita.
tion or doubt In discarding it altogether.
u Il = IL