The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-02-24
THE INDICTED JUDGES.
what Judge Hughes Said I'm the Case
of the Manchester Judges Of
Election.

likely 10 arise in any election in Virginia
the following charge of Judge Hughes 10
the Jury empanclled to try the Manchester
Judges will he read with interest. II will
be remembered that the jury were unable 10
agree on verdict in tins case and were dis
charged
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT, EASTERN DIS
TRICT OF VIRGINIA, AT RICHMOND, FEBRUARY
10. 1881.
United states rs. Il. Il. Foster, James CAT
io,ody. and Simuei Logan.
The indictment set out that the defend
ants were judges OF election for the Third
Ward precinct OF the town OF Manchester
at an election held on the 2 OF Novcmber,
1880. for choosing, amongst other officers,
representative in Congress from the Third
district of Virginia, and charged that they
did, at said precinct in said election, " un-
lawfully neglect and refuse 10 perform a
certain duty required OF them by the laws
OF the United States and Of the State Of Nir-
gina," in this. that they refused 10 receive,
give effect to, &C., the votes OF John Burton
and twelve other persons who are particu-
lary named in ID Indictment.
By on amendment Of The Constitution OF
Virginia IN the first section Of it, third nrtl-
Gle. adopted i'm the year 1877, it was pro-
required 10 cnlitle a citizen to vote
:" He shall have paid to the State, before
The dav Of election, the capitaion-taX re-
qulred by law for the preceding year"
By the seventh section Of chapter forty
third OF the Code of Virginia. defining how
money shall be paid into the State Treasury,
it is provided. among Other things, that after
the amount paid shalt have been lodged in
bank aud q certificate OF the fact delivered 10
the TTea>urcr--
"The Treasurer shall give a receipt for
The sum - paid; and upon the same being
delivered to the Auditor he
shall grant receipt therefor"
And the Penal Code Of Virginia, adopted
March H.. 1873, provides in section 26 OF
chapter S'h that
III any person, directly or indirectly,
give to a voter IN any election any money,
goods. or chGttels, or pay hl> capltation-taN
under an agreement, EXPRESSED or implied,
that such voter shall giyc hi> vote for 4 par
iicular candidate. such person shall be pun
i>hed by fine not less than twenty nor more
than one hundred dollars. And the voter
receiving such money, goods, or chatels. or
having his capilaiion.taX paid in pursuance
Of such agreement, shah be punished In
like manner with the person giving the
same
But there is no law, State or Federal, in
validating the vote OF the person whose tax
has been paid.
II was shown in evidence that the several
persons named in the Indictment aS having
been rejected a, voters were IN all other re-
Spect- qualified voters. and that in respect
to the payment of the cipitation.taX they
bad exhibited 10 the defendants as judges
Of election, receipt, precisely alike, except
as to the name Of the taxpayer. and which
were OF the following tenor:
COMMONWEALTH or VIRGINIA.,
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR OF
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS,
RICHMOND, Va. October 80, 1890.
"S1.05.
Received OF John Burton the receipt OF
the Treasurer OF the Commonwealth for one
dollar and five cents on account OF capita
ton and personal-property taxes returned
delinquent for the nOD-payment thereof by
the treasurer OF Manchester city for the
year 1879. G. w. DUEsBERRY. Clerk
It was also shown in evidence that the de.
PENDANTS, judges Of election, based their
refusal TO receive the votes OF the holders
Of these receipts first upon the ground that
they did not know that &. W. Due>berfy,
Jr., was a clelk OF the Auditor OF Virginia,
taxes had been paid and that ihereupon
a witness at once made affidavit that he
knew that DueSberry was such clerk, and
knew, moreover, OF bis own knowledge
that these particular taxes had been
paid. 1t was proved that after several
hours Of the clectiOn-day had passed the
judges saw written opinion signed by
the Judge Of the Corporation Court OF Man
chester To the effect that such receipts were
not genuine unless signed by the state
Auditor, John T.. Massey, himself. 1t was
also proved that the judges OF election re-
ieCed the votes Of the persons i'm question
on the additional ground that the taxes
had not been paid by the persons Offering
10 vote, but had been paid by some one
for them, and that although the taxes were !
paid, yet, the payment being made contrary |
to the law OF the state quoted above, the |
votes could not be received.
No proof was adduccd by the prosecution !
other than the foregoing TO show a wrong |
ful animu> or intent on the part OF the de-
PENDANTS in rejecting the votes OF the ihir-
teen persons named in the indictment.
Counsel on either side submitted the ease |
without Argument to the jury, with the un- !
HAT The Court would instruct |
the jury on the points Of law involved, |
which the Court did orally, but in. substance !
a. follows
Hughes, D.: Gentlemen Of the jury
This case is important as atlording an OPP |
pOruniiy for a judicial construction OF the |
election laws upon the SOmeNh hat difficult |
questions arising on the evidence before us.
Tbis Is the only manner in which a court OF |
justice can concern Itself with elections.
Their Office is 10 try and pass upon con-
tfOVerses between parties; either between
the government and accused persons in
causes, or between one person and
another ia civil causes. 4 court OF Justice
can regularly have 10 do only with causes
inter parties. All lis forms and proceed
ings lead 10 an issue OF fact, or law, or both.
Jet,se en- HigdntS and its function consists III
deciding such issues. As incidental to this
Junction it may grant Inianctions and re-
orders for protecting property in
or the rights OF litiganiS; and
L may issue writs OF Adbe0S corpus as a
means OF ascertaining whether a person in
confinement is lawfully confined upon "a
criminal charge. But these powers and
processes are only incidental 10 its chief aud
office Of determining c0ntr0yer-
lies isfss9 parties. A court cannot on or be.
ore an eection-day send cut its process to
VI whom il may concern prohibiting judges
# election generally or particularly from
long tIis or that, or directing them TO give
law ttls.or that coustructioS Judges OF
election Gge not part of tue judiciary estae-
ishment, and are not amenable 10 in {
from courts Of Justice in I
he exercise OF their high duties.
Whether segarded as servants OF the
legislature or as q branch Of the EXecu- G
I've, judges of election are wholly mde- |
endent OF e0gi;s OF justice in the power {