The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-12-04

8Htsuhn uis DeeD FlGfiifu. anu not 10 dc.
icrmine as TO the weight OF evidence. Bat
| beg leave respectfully 20 differ With him
In the statement that 1t Is not incumbent
upon the Government TO show mdiq .fides
on the part OF the accused judges, or that
they acted with fraudulent purpose.
These accused parties are judges OF cleo
tlon, aud as such they have not only the
right. but it is their duty, to decide all ques.
tloDs arising during the progress OF an PIec-
ton under the statute OF the state providing
for the mode and manIer Of conducting IL,
and TO determine as to the acce eptance or re-
lection OF ballots in coDtroveried cases. 1t
VIII hardly be seriously contended that
judge who discharges his duies
honestly aud without fraudulent rur-
pose can be punished for n mis;3ke OF
Judgment. The Government is bound
IN a criminal prosecution to show some.
thing more than "A neglect Of duty on the
part OF the judges accused. The object
aimed at IN all these statutes is 10 secure a
fair election, and lot 10 impose penalties
upon citizens for mistakes IN the consiruc-
ton OF laws. To punish man for an error
OF judgment would be a crime against li3-
erty; to vex and annoy him with prosecu-
tion and TO Impose upon him the burden OF
its cost is crime against humanity as well.
All the witnesses concur in tie statement
that the question as 10 whether the receipts
exhibited here are such as 10 entitle the par
ties holding them to vote, they being other
wise qualified, was raised and discussed.
THE TESTIMONY IS CONFLICTING
as TO the concurrence OF the three judges in
the rejection Of The ballots OF those who held
these receipts. But il is agreed tEat the mat
ter was fairly discussed, all parties plricipa-
ting who felt an interest in The subject. 1t
appears also that The judges did not fully
conclude TO reject the ballots before hearing
the opinion OF The corporation judge, TO
whom, under the statute OF the. State, IL
was their right and duty 10 apply In cases
Of doubt as TO construction Of law. They
sent for and received his written opinion,
which is here before us. 1t is apparent,
then, that the accused parties act
ed upon deliberatlon, and after con-
sulting the Judge OF their corporation. This
was all done openly and without conceal
mcnt, which is the usual badge OF fraud.
will not at this time pause to consider the
question whether their determination was
right or wrong. ] hold that they are sworn
Judges, and that they were bound TO decide
upon the validity OF the receipts when the
question was raised, and that il in the dis
charge OF this duty they acted bona .tde,
they arc not amenable 10 punishment. rms
evidence shows beyond doubt that they did
act with an honest purpose.
But HOW STANDS 1T
when we read the testimony OF two OF the
chief witnesses against themf When Mr..
Howle was asked 10 tell what he knew or
the receipts in qucsii ion, he declined to an
swer, and gave as his reason for the decli-
nation that his answers would tend to crimi-
nate himself. w. II. Anderson declined 10
answer the same question for the same rea-
son. They come 10 gather wool, and arc
afraid that they might be shorn. There Is
more danger 10 an invasion OF the right OF
suffrage from permitting persons 10 90 TO
the Office OF the Auditor OF Public Accounts
and there receive and take into their keep
ing, without any show OF authority, as was
done by HOTle and Beattic in the case OF
these receipts, than can possibly come from
their rejection. These receipts were de-
manded by IiOwle and Beattie, ard they
TOOK THEM IL THEIR KEEPING WITHOUT ANY
SHOW OF AUTHORITY,
and the poor voters could not thereafter ex-
erciSe the sacred right Of suffrage except by
their pockets, nobody believes that the per-
sons named in them would ever have re-
ceited them before it was ascertained how
they would vote. Howle and Beattie were
she supreme masters OF the situation.
| am respectfully OF opinion that these
parties ought 10 be discharged.
DISCHARGE OP THE PRISONERS ASKED FOR.
Mr. Kelley reviewed the ground Mr..
Wise went over and citedthe law governing
the cases, and also concluded by asking his
Honor to discharge the parties accused.
The commissioner said he was OF the
opinion that those men who held the tax
receipts were entitled to vote, and the
Judges violated the law-t0 what extent
viii be for the grand jury to decide. We
have very good grand jury, and Will
leave the matter with them. The parties
were accordingly sent on. and were ad-
mittel TO bail in the sum OF $500 each.
Foster and Galloway were Democratic
Judges of election, and Simuel Logan (col-
ored) was Republican judge.