The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-05-09
Partisan Prosecutions.

IfrOin The arrentOn True lnucN.I
We do not complain that Democrats are
put on trial. We do nOtask that they shall
not be put on trial, and if found guilty pay
the penalties OF violated law. But we do
ask that officials of a Federal court who
arraign Democrats on trivial evidence
shall not fail TO arraign CoalitiOnists whose
fragrant breaches OF law are beyond ques-
ton. Ii Mr.. Wise thought that justice
land certainly no other reason should have
prompted his action) demanded that Mr..
Munford and his deputies should be in
dicted and tried for failing to assess COSli-
~tionists, he ought to be prepared to prove
that their failure was intentional and
wilful, for the animuS Constitutes the
offence. On this point there is much
doubt, great numbers seeking assess
ment when the offence is ALLEGED TO
have been committed being a reliev-
ing circumstance. But while the re-
tanned attorney puTsues these officers, why
does he shut his eyes to offences committed
by Coalitionists that have no relieving cir
cumstance: Ii Munford and deputies may
be prosecuted for failure to assess from
press Of applicants and want OF time, why
may not deputies OF special collectors be
indicted and tried for concealing their ap-
p~Ointmcnts from Democrats until the day of
election, when it was too late for Democrats
to procure taX-receipts from tbcml Why,
indeed, may not special collectors them
selves be prosecuted for putting i'm the
hands Of deputies taX-rcceiptS for Coali-
tiOnists only when the law allowed no dis
elimination? Special collectors employed
judges OF county courts, Commonwealth
attorneys, superintendent Of schools, and
Federal officers OF various grades as depU-
ties. May all these secretly conspire 10
make voters Of Coalitionalists Oniy, and be
less amenable to the charge Of unfair dis
elimination than Munford and deputies ?
But there are other offences, and Of Il very
different il not grayer character, supported
by dispositions, OF which C~Oalitionalists are
guilty.
1t may be very criminal i'm the ewes OF
Mr.. Wise for Democrats TO neglect 10 As
sess ignorant negroes who had not the in
telligencc to present themselves for assess
ment when there was no press of apDlica-
tons; but il is no offence whatever i'm his
eyes for the Auditor TO issue printed lists
and send them from his office without even
appending his name TO them TO parties
styled collectors before they executed bond
or qualified as the law required-no Of
fence to appoint collectors in counties
from which the Auditor had received no
delinquent lists-none to antedate the bond
OF Smelling that some 400 or 500 ballots east
on his receipts might be saved to Coalition
none for General Malone to order the clerk
OF the Auditor 10 remove Mr.. OVERLY as
special collector for Pittsylvania county
simply because he would not consent 70
violate the plain laws Of the State as other
collectors did-none for these special coll
lectors to issue without limit blank tax re-
ceipts and put them in Inscriptions hands
to be secretly used where they would do
most good to advance the election of the re-
tanned attorney. OF course there is no Of
fence TO Mr.. Wise in all these and various
other practices too numerous TO mention
but they are nevertheless offences against
law. Because they are, and that we look
for nothing but the lowest partisan conduct
from such a man, we appeal to Judge
Hughes and the Acknowledgement to see
II Democrats are TO be tried. that Co.
slitionists shall not be allowed to 20 scott
free"