The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-01-09

BysMr. AsuroN ls 70 property Of mar
He'd women. 8. 10. i
Dor to work upon Raleigh ana drayson
turnpike. 40.
BY Mr.. ANDERSON As to incorporating
st. Paul's Church Home.
By Mr.. EDWARDS: AS TO SUPERVISORS levy
ing tax. Y :.
BIZ same: hsto issuing county warrants.
q BY same: AS to counties taxing rail-
roads and canals.
Br Mr.. GRAVES: AS 70 eninTgihg iuris-
diction OF circuit judges IN vacation.
BY Mr.. ANDERSON: as 10 connnlng
sitting OF city registrars Ten Jays PRIOR 10
the election to one day.
BY Mr.. ASHTON: TO prevent evasion OF
revenue laws, &c. -. .,s.sss,
to unlawful fishing.
rSnch ne the above as are destined to be-
come laws will be noticed five times at least
hereafter-yiz.. when reported; when passed
jby House !: when reported by Senate commit
tees: when passed by Senate; when ap-
proved by the GoYernor.l
~ MOUTH CT YORK RIVER. rzas
: General TAIIAggRRo presented petition
OF IT'S citizens OF the county OF Gloucester.
asking that the mouth of York river be liked
by law. Referred to Committee on Chesa-
peake and its Tributaries.
MEMBER FROM YORK AND JAMES CITY.
I Mr.. HANGER, from the Committee on
Privileges and Elections, submitted the re-
mort of the committee in the case OF the con-
test OF w. Fl. SHIELD against Robert Nor
ton. to the effect that Norton (who IS col
ored many is entitled to his seat.
Mr.. ROBINSON Of Portsmouth, for himSeil,
presented minority report in favor OF CIV
ing the seat to Mr.. SHIELD.
Dir. BoHANNoN moved that the report and
record be passed by and printed: Not
agreed to.
Mr.. HANGER said that the allegations OF
Irregularities were numerous, but that the
evidence bore only on one case: the mode
in which the vote was canvassed al YORK
town, 1t was claimed that there the ballots
were not read aloud and had been handled
by others than the judges. The law only
requires that the ballots should be read,
which was done in the presence OF members
of the two parties, and there was no COM
plant from contestants friends at the time.
The ballots were only handled by the clerk
in the presence Of the judges.
Mr.. ROBINSON OF Portsmouth, stated that
the evidence OF the three judges was that
thew did not read the ballots-didn't read
them aloud or otherwise; and that the
handling of the ballots was Left to the clerk.
Upon his statement the judges signed the
certificate. That, Dir. ROBINSON thought,
yitiated the proceedings. When they went
to draw out the excess Of ballots, the only
Conservative Judge present was bllndfolded
to make the draw, leaving the two Repub-
lican judges to do what they pleased. Ii
was his view that the law intended the draw
to be made by member Of the party having
two judges.
Mr.. HANGER: Will the gentleman allow
Me to state what was the excess OF ballots
Mr.. ROBINSON: Yes, sir.
hIr. HANGER: The excess was one.
Mr.. j. D. JOHNSTON represented that the
contestant obtained the same number OF
votes as the other Conservative candidates
There was no evidence Of fraud and none
of irregularity, except that some OF the
The ballots were handled by no one but the
Judges and clerk, and by the clerk right in
the presence Of the judges. There was nc
objection made at the TIME to the count by
CONTESTANTS friend, who was present. Mr..
JOHNSTON, in concluding his remarks, said
that there was no proof at all OF fraud.
Mr.. CLARKE said Mr.. ROBINSON seemed to
have mistaken allegations for proofs. The
evidence bore only on the Yorktown pre-
cinct. There it was alleged that the ballots
were handled by others than the Judges.
The proof was that they passed through the
hands of the clerk in the presence Of the
Judges. The law does not require the bal
lots to be read aloud, as contestant seemed
to think, but that they be read distinctly
read sufficiently to know what was on them
The Conservative judge was not blind.
folded at all; he merely shut his eyes-s
moment-long enough to draw out one bal.
lot, and Mr.. Jones, the friond OF Mr.
SHIELD, was present all the time.
Mr.. ROBINSON said that the law required
the person drawing ballots to be blIndfold'
ed: that the evidence was uncertain on that
point, and that he had given them credit
for that much regularity, and that the law
positively prescl lbed that the ballots should
not he handled by others than the Judges
Mr.. CLARKE contended that no matter
how long the Conservative Judge was blind
folded. Mr.. Jones was there TO watch the
interests of Mr.. SHIELD, and Mr. Jones did moi
claim there was fraud. The worst that could
be said in this case was that the ballots
passed through the hands OF the clerk in
the presence of the Judges, which was moi
such an irregularity as ought to vitiate the
election.
Mr.. McCAULL called the pending ques.
ton: ordered on diyision-ayes, ST; noes,
IS; Al members absent or not voting.
Mr.. RoBINsON's substitute was rejected
The committees report was adopted. Mo
ton to reconsider rejected.
COST OF OFFICE OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONER
The SPEAKER laid before the House the
following in response to resolution OF the
House: .....
i'RIcHMoND, January 7, 1878.
.s TO the Honorable the House of Delegates
"In response to the resolution of the
House directing the Railroad Commissioner
to furnish TO that body statements OF the
officers, clerks, and employees in his office,
and OF salaries and amounts received by
each, and Of all expenses connected there
with since the creation Of the office have
the honor to state that have one. clerk,
whose salary per annum is $1,000, and no
other cmploye.
"The salary of the Railroad Commits
sioner is $4,000 per annum. The sum OF
$500 is allowed for employment OF experts
and for purchase OF maps, stationery, DC.
Total amount for office and all expenses
connected with it, $4,000. OF this amount
there has been expended to the 1st OF Janu-
airy as follows:
Paid salary of Commissioner from the
Seducted5 .$2,1eo 67
Paid clerk OF Commissioner from The
tax tax de'Iuctedj. ~. 49,. lo51 81
Augmentation for contingencies and ex-
Df no mt M