The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1881-03-10
Virginia's Election Laws.

The charge of Judge R. W. Hughes, of the
United States Circuit Court ofVirginia, to the
jury in the cases of the Manchester judges of
election, on trial for refusal to receive the
votes of thirteen coored men, is valuable as
giving concise Interpretation of the new cleo
ton laws now in force in this State. These
colored men were armep with what purported
to be receipts issuing from the office of the
Auditor of Public Accounts of the Common
wealth of Virginia as evidence that their cap
itation tax had been paid, and in all 9TH
er respects it was conceded they were qualified
voters. The claim was made by the judges of
election that those receipts were signed by
clerk in the auditors office, and not be the au-
tlitor himself. The election judges held that
section 7 of chapter 43 of the Code of Virginia,
in providing that on the treasurer's receipt for
money paid into bank being delivered to the
auditor, the latter officer shall grant receipt
therefor" required that this receipt for re-
ceipt should be signed by the auditor himself
Judge Hughes, touching this point, called the
attention Of the jury to the fact that the Ian
guage OF the Code in respect to the auditor is
not that he shall sign and grant receipt for
the treasurers receipt, but simply that he shall
grant such receipt The law, he said seem
ed to contemplate that the pressure of labor
upon the auditors office might be so great at
times as to render it inconvenent, and some
times impossible, for him to sign all receipts
with his own sign-manual, and in that view
seems to have employed the word grant"
instead of the words sign and grant," Be-
sides, mere receipt for receipt is not 80 i'm
portant an instrument but that the duty of
signing it may very safely be delegated to
clerk.
The second claim of the election judges was
that they surmised, inferred or supposed that
these persons had not paid their capitation
tax in person, but that some one else had paid
the tax in their stead, and that this disqualf1-
ed them from voting. Judge Hughes charged
the jury that this objection to the votes
was insufficient, and said eff "a citizens's tax
has been paid, and he is otherwise qualified,
then, by that fact, he becomes qualified yo-
ter. Ifit is paii for him by another, not in the
way OF bride, and without any understand
ing, express or implied, that he is to vote for
particular candidate, then the payment is le-
gal and in every way proper. Ii it is paid as
Il bride, or with an understanding, express or
implied, that he is 10 vote for particular can
didate, then he commits an offence punishable
by twenty dollar fine for which he may be
prosecuted; and that is the only penalty
which the law visits upon the act; it does not
invalidate the vote or reimpose the disqualif
cation of the voter. And so, if the taxes of
these men had 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, ana Lnelr VoteS SnOulQ OF right nave Deen
received. Judges of election haYe nothing to
do with penal laws They are not at liberty
to suspect as to citizen who pleads that his
tax has been paid; that another person has
paid for him, and try him summarily under a
penal statute, which condemns him only in
the penalty of a twenty dollar fine to convict
and sentence him TO the different penalty of be-
ing disqualified from voting-acting in the
space of five minutes as prosecutor. judge and
jury. This would be revival of Star Cham
Der methods, and is repugnant TO all our
American ideas of free government and civil
liberty"
Thus Judge Hughes decided that the judges
of election, in refusing to accept these votes,
did neglect and refuse to perform duty" re-
CURED of them by the laws of Virginia and the
United State. At the same time, as previous
to their action they sought the opinion of the
judge of the Corporation Court at Manchester
and followed it, although it was wrong he. ac-
cepted this as an Indication OF good faith on
the part of the judges, and tact proper 10 be
| considered, even if the advice which they took
inisled them into the commission of penal
offense. The jury disagreed.