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

'''"0"'N' W ~ "'i'Wf dt dily ilIDe DeIOfe
they are returned delinquent. After they
have been returned delinquent they mas be
paid TO the clerk OF the court or into The
State Treasury. IL paid into the State
Treasury, warrant must be Obtained from
the Auditor directing the Treasurer to re-
ceive the amount TO be paid !. The Treasurer
soall, by MS order upon the said warrant.
require the cashier OF one Of the said banks,
public depos'lorles, TO receive the sum
therein men'ioncd; and upon receiving the
sane the proper officer oi the rank shalt
give certificate on the same warrant that
the said sum has been paid into said bank
TO the credit Of the Treasurer. Upon the
return OF the warrant, order, and certif.
cate. The Treasurer shall give receipt for
the sum so PAID. See Code OF Virginia OF
1878, chapter 43, 81, page 4lC-l1.
In my opinion neither the Auditor. State
Treasurer, nor any OF their clerks have any
right 10 receive any moneys due the State
except in the manner above prescribed.
1.-THE Auditor appoints special collector
TO collect taxes 10 arrears he has no power 10
actuDtil he shall have been duty appointed,
approved by The Governor, and qualfed by
giving bond in The manner prescribed in
sections "a and 35, chapter go, Acts lS7s-T9,
page 329. Re- pectiuly,
WILLIAM ]. CLOPT0N, City Judge.
November 2, 1880.
THa ARGUMENT.
District Attorney Lewis, Ia oDeDing the
argument, said: We have not arrived at
that stage OF this prosecution for the con-
slderation OF The question as tn whether or
not the fdc:s OF The case justify the in1c-
ton OF punishment upon the defendants !;
and II so. the proper measure OF punish
ment'o be imposed. The sole ques ion now
TO be passed upon by your Honor Is whether
the facts disclosed by the evidence show
probable cause TO believe the defendants
guilty Of the violation OF the law with
which they are charged. IL they do, then
j submit The case, and it must be sent on
for the action OF the grand jury.
The defendants, as judges OF election, are
charged with illegally rejecting the votes OF
thirteen men who were qualified 10 vote,
and who offered 10 vote, at the precinct at
which the election was beng conducted by
the defendants. Their votes were r., iecfed
solely because Of their failure 10 produce
satisfactory evidence OF the payment Of
their cGpitatiOU-taX. Each, when he offered
to vote, produced and rendered 10 the de-
PENDANTS receipt for their tax, signed by
G. w. Due>berry, clerk in the Office OF the
Auditor OF Public Accounts. The defend
ants refused TO recognize the validity OF
these receipts, assigning, IN the first case, as
their reason that they did not know Dues
berry 10 be a duly-appointcd clerk OF the
Auditor, and in the most Of the other cases
assigning as their reason for rejecting the
vote, that the Auditor had 10 right TO re-
ceivc the taXcs in question. All Of the re-
cep,s bear date October 80, 1889. Nov, il,
as Claim for the prosecution, the thirteen
men whose votes were rejected were quail
fed voters, there can be no doubl as 10 the
duty of your Honor TO send on the case TO
the grand jury.
The act of Congress under which the war
rants have been drawn provides that every
officer OF an election at which representa-.
tive i'm Congress is voted for who noglects
or refuses to perform any duty in regard TO
such election required Of him by any law OF
the United States, or OF the State in which
the election is held, shall be guilty Of mis-
demeanOr, and punished in the mode pre-
scribed. Hence. | submit that the reiec-
ton, without sufficient cluse, Of the vote Of
a aualifed voter renders the defendants
amenable TO the punishment prescribed by
the statute to which have referred. II is
the duty Of election officers 10 receive the
votes OF all qualified voters who offer TO vote,
and their failure TO do so is a serious offence
against the laws both OF the State and ma
ton.
Now, / lay down this proposition right
here: that in prosecution for Illegally
neglecting 10 perform their duties as judges
of election, it is not incumbent upon the
limited States to show fraud or corruption
on the part Of these defendants, or even
maia tides. IT, therefore, the receipts pro-
duced by the rejected voters were genuine,
and were sufficient evidence OF the payment
OF their capitation-taX (their right TO vote
in other respects being concsded), the fact
that the defendants refused to receive their
votes establishes tue case for the prosecu
ton. Then the question arises. " ere these
receipts genuine and sufficient evidence o!
the payment OF the taxes IN question
II rightly understand
TIE THEORY OF THE DEFENCE,
the action Of the defendants in respect to
these receipts is justified on three grounds
I. IL is claimed that the defendants were
right in saying thatihey did not know Dues
berry, who signed them, 10 be clerk OF the
Auditor.
9. That the taxes in question were not
pa,d by the voters TO whom the receipts
were given, but by other persons for them,
and that they were therefore Invalid; and
3. That il this be not so, the money was
not paid into the Treasury in the mode pre-
scrlbed by law, and that tbeIefore the re-
ceipts are not valid.
With respect to The first ground, it is suf-
ficient to say that credible and intelligent
witness (Mr. Howle) teslities that he offered
10 swear when the first vote was rejected
that Duesberry was duly.appointed clerk
OF the Auditor (aS, indeed, the law pre-
sumed him to be, as he was acting in pub
Inc capacity, but that the defendants refused
To hear evidence en- the subject. IL is also
Droyen that in an official communication
from the Office Of the Auditor on the day oil
election these very defendants were in
formed that Duesberry was authorized 10
issue the receipts in question.
With respect to the second ground OF de-
fence, | submit that as the statute OF Virginia
does not require the delinquent taxpayer TO
nav his capitaton-taX ins person, II may De
lawfully paid for him by an agent, even
through The agency OF self-appointed
agent. Such laws should receive the mosl
liberal construction possible; and their
benefcent object (namely, the restoration
OF a citizens right to vote) should not be
defeated by applying to them tbe strict
construction applicable to criminal statute
10 answer to the third ground, il IS sur
ficient to say that the testimony OF the State
officials who have been examined In the
case shows that the taxes in question were
paid into the Treasury in strict accordance
with the requirements of the statutes upon
the subject Of payments into the Treasury
Mr.. Lewis also argued that the opinion
of Judge Clopton referred 10 In the evi
dence was extra Judicial; was, moreover
In the teeth OF the plain statute OF the Com