The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-02-24
theIr VOTES were rejected, then these iudges


form their duty" in the premises, and arc
technically guilty OF the charge set out
against them In the indictment. say they
are technically guilty by the mere act OF
ncglecting and refusing" TO receive the
votes, for tue law on which the indictment
is based, section 55l5 OF the Revised Statutes
OF the United States. makes the naked acI
Of so neglecting and refusing" crime
and uses no qualifying term, such as " cor
ruptly," or wilfully," or with wrong
iu INTENT" as necessary to be proved be-
sides the naked act But although such Is
the wording OF the statute, instruct you
that the law disdalns to punish q man who
innocenIy, or ignorantly, or in good faith,
commits an unlawful ACT; and therefore
this Indictment, though Il need not neces
sarily have done so, charges that the neglect
and refusal 10 perform their duty by these
defendants was unlawful" In order TO
a conviction in this case, I instruct you,
therefore, that the prosecution must not
only have proved neglect and refusal by
these defendants TO perform the duty re-
quir(d OF them by law. but that the neglect
and refusal were coupled with some wrong
ful purpose. motive, or intention on their
part
The principal question in the present case.
repeat, is whether the thirteen persons
who offered to vote on the Auditors re-
ceipts, a sample OF which is given above,
were entitled 10 vote. II is conceded that
in all other respects these persons (who
were all colored) were qualified voters. It's
also conceded that these receipts are genll-
inc documcntS-that is 10 say, they are
veritlbly what they purport to be: receipts
is.uing from the ''ofiice of The Auditor OF
Public Accounts" OF the Commonwealth
OF Virginia" at Richmond. Their genu-
ineRess was not disputed, and could not
have been disputed in any part OF the terri
tory of Virginia. The only point made 10y
the Judges Of election was that The receipt
was signed by a clerk in the Auditors
Office, and not bv the Auditor himself.
They held that section OF chapter 43 OF
the Code of Virginia. in providing that on
the Tre,surer's receipt for money paid into
bank being delivered to the Auditor the lat
ter officer shall "grant receipt therefore,
required that this receipt for areceipt should
be signed by the Auditor himself.
When this question was submitted TO me
by the grand jury which found this lndlct-
meni, | answered that. the genuinencss OF
this recent as a document issuing from the
Auditors office not being disputed, IFS sum
cheney must be presumed until the contrary
is shown. This did, on the well-knOwn
maxim of law, omnid preSpmunter rite et
SOicpHer eSSe dct+; which means that all
official acS OF officers, done under their Of
fetal OathS, in the line Of their official duty.
must be presumed TO have been rightly and
| legally done, in due form, until the contra
ry is shown. TEat such acts were rlgnily
done must be taken for granted. from
the necessity OF the case; else Infinite
Inconvenience. obstruction, and confusion
would take place, and the affairs OF society
could not 90 on. ! also asked the grand
! Jury to observe that the language OF the
| Code in respect 10 the Auditor was not that
/ he shaLl sign and grant receipt for the
Treasurcr's receipt, but simply that he shall
grant such receipt. The law seemed 10
contemplate that the pressure o! labor upon
the Auditors Office might be 80 great at
times a. TO render il incOnyenicnt and some
times impossible for him to sign all re-
ceipts wiki his own sign-manual. and in
that view seems 20 have employed the word
" grant" instead OF the words "sign and
| grant" Besides, a mere receipt for re-
ceipt is not 50 important an instrument but
that the duty OF signing it may very safely
be delegated to q clerk.
| Another objection OF the defendants to re-
ceiSing the votes OF the persons holding
|
the recent amendment to the State COnsli-
tuition declaring that the citizen, in order
to be entitled to vote. SHALL among other
things, "have paid to the State, before the
day Of election, the capitatiOn fax required
by law for The preceding year and evil
| dencc was offered 10 show that the Judges
surmiSed, inferred, or supposed, that these
persons had not paid their taxes in person ;
but that some one else had paid them in
their stead and this was supplemented with
still other evidence, proving 1t to have been
the opinion OF these defendants that taxes so
paid did not remove the disqualification
from the persons who were Offering to vote.
| Ny instruction TO you, gentlemen, on this
whole set OF opinions, set up for these de-
| PENDANTS is that each OF the three grounds
OF objection TO the votes in question Is in
sufficient. The clause in the Constitution
| is one of that class Of clauses which all legal
and political maXims OF construction require
| 10 be literally interpreted and applied. II
citizens tax has been paid. and he is
otherwise qualified, then, by that fac',
he becomes qualified voter. ii il
| is paid for him by another, not in
the way of bribc, and without
auy understanding, express or implied,
that he Is 10 vote for particular cLndidItc,
then the payment is legal and in every way
| proper. III 1t is paid as brlbc, or with an
understanding, express or implied, that he
is TO vote for particular candidate, then
he commits an offence punishable by a
| twenty-dollar fine, for which he may be
prosecuted; and that i the only penalty
which the law visits upon the act it does
not iuyalidate the vote or relmpOse the dis
qualification Of the VOTER
h. a -.
been paid, whether in violation OF law or
not in violation of law, the right to vote
attached to them on such payment OF the
tax, and their votes should Of right have
been received. judges OF election have
nothing TO do with penal laws. They are
not at liberty to suspect a. 10 citiZrA who
pleads that his tax has been paid; that an
other person has paid ii for him, and to try
him summariIy under a penal statute,
which condemns him only in tn penalty OF
a twenly-d0llar fine, to convict and sentence
him to the different penalty OF being dis
qualified from voting-acting in the space
OF five minutes as prosecutor, Judge, and
jury. This would he revival CT STAR
Chamber methods, and is repugnlnt 10 all
our American ideas of free government and
civil liberty.
| therefore instruct you, gentlemen, that
these receipts were sufficient evidence OF
the payment OF the taxes OF the men named !
in them; that these men became thereby |
qualified TO vote on the receipts whether
the law OF 1878 had been violated or not;
and that even il the law had liz fict been |
violated, such violation only subjected the
parties TO the offence TO tine OF $50, trable |
and punishable by court OF justice. and !
not to disfranchsement 10y these judges OF
election; for the violation did not rtimpOse |
tie disqualification which had existed before |