The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-01-06


plainly a State Office, with a salary pro-
yided by the State-not paid out Of the
State Treasury, but drawn for by the State
on subordinate subject to its jurisdiction.
That the case OF the Commonwealth at
Itorney passed upon by the Supreme Court
| i'm Robertson Us. Clopton was not applica-
BILE TO the matter In hand, and oil no author
ity IN the question now before Us. That
the drgumentuna de conueniehtt was OF
great force with him I'm the construction OF
the statute. II never could have been con-
templated that judge OF County Court
holding all the cards I'm his own hands,"
with power to remove and appoint the
Judges OF election throughout the election
district, and to appoint The returning-board
commissioners, who were TO count the votes
and declare the result, might enter the list
as O candidate against all legitimate aspi-
rants. He further maintained that con-
struction OF the statute TO make him capa-
ble TO be elected was rather strained than
natural, and that he was constrained,
therefore. to differ with the learned lawyers
who compose the committee.
Mr.. Mccormick advocated the adoption
OF the report. The question is narrow
one-to wit, Is county court Judge n
Sdlaried officer under the Constitution 7
He conceded that Mr.. Crumpler was State
officer, but not Sdidried State officer
Full effect must be given TO every word IN
the clause OF the Constitution. 1t does
not am at person who is merely State
officer, but at one who is Sdldried officer
under the State government. The true test
OF whether the officer is a salaried State or
county officer is which pays his salary. He
contended II his salary was paid by the
county he was not salaried officer under
The State government in the meaning OF the
Constitution, while at the same time he
might be State officer. a county court
| Judge is paid by the county over whose court
he presidcs. The Supreme Court, in the
case OF Robertson Us. Ciopton, Judge, 9TH
Law journal, 450, has construed the mean
ing of this provision Of the Constitution.
| IL holds that the Commonwealths attorney
Of Manchester, while he is a State officer,
| IL not Sdldried State officer, because his
salary is derived wholly from the city trea-
sury and moi that OF the State. So with a
county-court Judge. He reprobattd d the
policy that permitted n cOunty-cOurt Judge,
who appoints all the officers to conduct an
election, TO be candidate at said election;
still we had to apply the law as it is and
not as it should be.
The report was adopted:
| AYES.-NIessrs. Atkinson, Bailey Christian,
Coltr'nee; Ligge, Edmonds, FLETCHER, Gaines'
Grim, Heaton. Mccormick, .NcDOndid, Mere
dlth. Norton. Rogers Thurman, Trout, Twyman'
and Winghed-I9.
NoEs.-Messrs. Bliss Glasgow, Kolner. Loven-
stein, Newherry. Warwick, and Wickham-7.
Coaltionists In italics.
Judge Crumper is Coalitionst.
KEEzLE vs.. WEBB.
| The report OF the Committee on Priv
| leges and Elections in this case lin favor
Of seating the Democratic contestanD came
up (Nlr. Wickham in the chair, and Mr..
| Thurman. IN view OF the long delay already
taken place. moved immediate considera-
ton. Mr.. Bailey, however. asked for time
to read the printed record. and 30 the re-
port was made the special order for Mon
day at O'Clock.
The report is as follows
To me Senate Of VirginiG:
The Committee on Privileges and Elections has
| carefully and earnestly examined and analyZed
tac evidence produced before IL In the contested
| election case Of George b. Keezcll rS j. j. Webb
| and has arrived AZ The conclusion that the claim
Of the contestant. George u. keezell, To seat In
this body Is not only justified, but absolutely de-
| manded hy the clear and conclusive evidence in
the record. The facts la the case, though proven
| bv number of witnesses and covered in "A y0lu-
miNous record. may be concisely stated As fol-
| lows:
| !. The notice Of contest was properly given and
executed, ana the Gepositions I'm support Of its
| ayerments were taken within the time prescribed
| by law.
| ?. The name Of George u. Keezell In the re-
turns made by the Judges of election Is variously
spelled Ts & l also , Sr9e Of The returns rs ,be IN
tlckeis, made by the deputy clerk Of the County
Court of Rockingham under an order ot said
were properly spelled upon tlctlckcts respectively
cast i)r them. and that the error In spelling VA,
| made ny the iudges. We have attached no impori
| ancc 70 The misspelling OF names. The principle
f. familiar and too wei established 10 admit of
doubt that the mis- pelng Of a name is not mate
rial ii the two names be of the same sound. Ml-
nor. part /. page ga. edition Of 1873. Bright
lCys Leading Cases on Elections, pages 25s 10
! 265I We have therefore given both contestant
and conte,tec credit for the total number Of yoiei
cast for them. respectively, under the different
names.
! 3. The ir eguariiies. not to say the fraudulent
! conduct - ne ludgr, of election. 1T COnrad's
! store pr, clnct were such 10 call in the judy
meut Of the commtte. for the rejection in whole
Of the vote cast there The evidence IN brief
shows I'm support Of this:
(a) That the polls were not opaned until up
wards of one hour after the rising OF the sun. al
though two OF the judges were present on the
ground at sunrise. and were fully empowered 10y
law th to select third Judge. The delay III
opening the polls was caused by the improper ana
| reprehen, bile conduct Of one Bishop. Judge OF
election on behalf Of the Coalition party. who re-
fused 10 agree with Hammer. the Democratic
judge. in the selection Of third Judge, because, as
he alleged, such third Judge was a Fundcr. and all
those then present. from whom tie selection had
| 10 be made. were also funders lie proposed one
John Hcnslay as the third judge, whom he ac-
| credited aS 4 Straight0ut Republican, and who as
| such was accepted by Hammer, but who after his
selection voted the Coalition tck ket and frequently
during the day abandoned his post Of duty to per
| form the more profitable one Of electioneering
with the voters for the Coalition ticket. The now
celebrated ease of Frazier and LadyrS Leeeh and
| Dunlop. decided by the House II Delegates Of
| lsSl-'s2, lsee House Journal, pages 1910 is
authority for the proposition Ohough we do not
regard II as SUCH that this alone would necessa'
riy yitiate this poll" We do not rest the rejec-
ton Of this poll upon This fact alone" and only
| treat ii ms one of many Irregularities ana as
| badge of fraud.
| the day absented themselves from their post OF
| duty while ballots were being received. and were
guilty Of the nnseemly conduct of eiectioheering
! for the Coalition ticket.
| (c) The other election Judge Hammer, In the
repeated absence OF the other Two. WAS left In sole
| charge OF the voting, receiving the ballots Of
electors and depOsiting them In The box In utter
and iagTant disregard of the POSITIVE mandate oi
The law that all three shall be present together al
! tie time of the voting.
| (dl The observation-disclosures were opened and ex-
alnlned bat twice during the entire day, although
the law IS pei emptory IN It's requirement. that the
names of the voters shall be found ana checked on
! the Observation-Disclosures rs they vote
| lel This omission of clear and imperative duty
! to thus examine the registration books and check
the votes of led To the voting ~ That Dreciuct OF
| fif,y men, who, on an examination OF the regis
tration books had Subsequent To the election, dis
closed not registered al all, and there Is no pre-
{ nse that they had transfers-indeed the contrary
| appears.
| ~ In addition to this Ave persons were permit
| ted TO vote upon transfers from other counties,
although they had not been residents of Rocking
ham county for three months next preceding the
election. rs required by law.
fgl All these Illegal votes were east for DIR. j. u.
Webb.
For these reasons, without now going into the
| question of the manner In which The vote was
| counted by the judges. which was grossly irregu-
lar and improper. we have rejected IN The compu-
taton OF the vote In Rockingham county, the en-
tire poll ut Conrad's store. Reckless disregard OF
essential requirements Of the law on the part of