The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-03-11
Ave or No?

find II In our heart TO write anything that
Is harsh concerning them. The best way
20 do is not TO become acquainted with such
fellows. Their presence reminds us always
Of MA6INS's advice 10 his brother Torres
namely. that II they should travel all day in
a s,age-coacl with an agreeable, cultured,
and entertaining gentleman who at parting
should inform them that he was Wing,
they mustn't believe him, but always think
Of him a. Tory.
Nevertheless, we are not going to let
Speaker FOWLER 90 scot-free In regard 10
The wonderful ruling he made last week on
point Of order raised by cx-speakcr
HANGER. Let us explain the matter. a
rule of the House OF Delegates reads as fol-
lows:
Upon a division Of the House on any
question. q member who Is present ana
fails To vote shall. on the demand OF any
other member. he counted on the negative
oi the question:
NOW. 20 an ordinary mind it would seem
plain that this rule could never be made to
apply 10 IN election. "a division OF the
House on any question" are words which
clearly imply a division OF the House into
two groups only--a negative group and an
affirmative group; and such was Mr. HANG
ss's point. But the new Speaker promptly
ovcrrulcd the point, and ruled in effect that
when SMITH and JONES are candidates for
judgesbip in the Readjuster House OF Del
ecstcs the Rcadjuster Speaker will rule,
and the Rosdjuster House will sustain the
decision. that SMITH, il 4 Roadjuster. is the
affirmative side Of the question, and JOKES,
il FundcT, il the negative side OF the
question. This puts DANIEL OC0NSELL's
nomenclature to shame. DAN. put down
a common scold on one occasion by
telling her that she was a "bypo-
thcnusc." an 'isoscelCs Triangle
parallelogram. and various other SINH
lar things; but FOWLER put down HANG
rs by calling his FowLER's) candidate for
Judge the affirmative side OF question,
thus proving that HANGERS candidate, if
h had one. was the "negative side OF the
question: and therefore that all the men,
isrs OF the House. Resdiusters OF Fund
c-s, who had refused to vote for FOwLER's
candidate had by that refusal voted for
HANGERS candidatc-a conclusion which
must greatly have puzzled the under
standings OF some OF the distinguished
gentlemen who had so recently reversed
decision OF the Supreme Court OF APP
peals.
We suggest 10 Mr.. Fowler that his rea-
.,,;,,o ,nt,.f b.Ua "a NV Ina for IL RpnurN
were running as well as JONES and SMITH
has ruling would % fail TO make the connec-
ton" Think of ii, Mr.. Speaker. What
VIII you do when You go to elect judge
Of the Hastings Court Of Richmond il the
Funders should happen to have two candi-
dstesi PHI Mr.. HANGER should vote for
CHRISTIAN, Mr.. CoGHnL for WARD, and
Mir. FOWLER for ATKINS? Pray, how would
YOU decide in that case? To whom would
YOU accord the honor Of being "the
negative side Of the question '!-and TO
whom the honor OF being ~ the affirmative
ride Of the question y! Is WARD OF
CHRISTIAN any more OF "negative side of
the question" than ATKINS? And ii not,
where will your ruling be when the next
election comes off? And if your ruling is |
thus demonstrated to be wrong when three |
candidates are voted for, does it not neces- |
sarily follow that it was wrong when only |
two candidates were voted for! AS surely |
~ the sum OF two and two is four so surely !
was your ruling wrong. 1t Is eXcusable |
only because it was hastily made. Suisse |
nj ro1o.ffo,, have nnnpinaa1
that it is wholly unjustilable and there
fore untenabc.
Mr.. RIDDIEBERGER on the same day
Speaker FOWLER made his remarkable ruling
saw that it wouldn't do, and plainly
warned the Senate that an alleged election
might be held by the courts to be 10 elec
tion If il was consummated only by Speaker
FOwLER's assumption Of the right to east
the votes of MeSsrs. POLLARD, STUBBs, I
DAVIS, SKINNER, Lyons, and others in "the !
negative"-a negative created by Mr. !
FOWLER himself-a " fiat" negative, so to |
speak. And thus the case stands. We
trust, however, that should any further /
unlawful attempts be made TO elect a Judge
for this city the Speaker will not cast any
other vote than his own, nor trouble the
public with any more fiat negative sides Of
questions.
The rule under which Mr. FOWLER made
his extraordinary ruling may he very
good one when confined to the purpose for
which it was intended to lie used by its
trainers, not one of whom, we suppose,
ever conceived the idea that il could or
would ever be used by the Speaker Of the
House for the purpose Of securing the cleo
ton OF the Speakers candidate for any
Office, against the protest Of the gentlemen
VINO were thus against their will made to
elect that Speakers candidate. oh, no.
That ruling must never De repeated, FOw-
hER. We are sure il was conscientiously |
made. but equally as sure that il won't |
work when there are three candidates.
Well, what OF it alls "Only this and
Nothing more: That a. the Roadiusters
have only % votes in the Senate when Ly-
BROOK and WINGFiELD refuse to act with
them, rs they will whenever any Of these |
unlawful elections of judges come up, and |
as IL will be necessary for them to have n /
OCT OF these - present whenever the OF
posers Of such elections decline to vote. II |
j. almost absolutely certain that said OBJ
posers will have II in their power TO pre-
vent all such elections, us well as TO kill of |
all Objectionable and revolutionary mea-
Il. J.. n