Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1885-08-26
The Contested Election Cases in the Last Va.
Legislature.

Under the excitement of strong passion
a truthful man will sometimes misrepre-
sent, but no man of honor will continue to
prevaricate when he knows the truth or
can correctly inform himself. The
Malone speakers and editors have repeated
the story of the illegally unseated Republi-
can members of the last Legislature SO Of
ten that some of them, fear, really believe
it. The Valley Virginian, in its last num-
Der, uses this language
"a party with bare majority in the
Legislature deliberately and by pre-arrange
ment goes to work to deprive the legally
elected representatives of the people of their
seats and install in their places partizans,
WIN had not been elected, in order to pro
cure two-thirds majority
will, for the sake of charity, presume
that the editor, when he wrote this serious
charge, was under the excitement of a very
strong passion, superinduced by the loss of
the Staunton postofice, and will ask his
attention to the record. | was a member
of the Committee of Elections, and will
say in reply to the charge just quoted that
| never saw more conscientious, a more
unselfish, a more laborious set of men i'll
my life. All, both Democrats and Repub-
rive at the truth and the facts in each par
ticular case and to discharge their duty
faithfully and honestly. 1t will be found
that in some, yes, a great many, instances
the committee was unanimous. The Rock
nigham case, about which SO much has
been said, was decided by unanimous
committee against the Republican candi-
dates. Nothing has ever been said of the
Democrats who were refused seats, or of
those Republicans who were retained, but
one would suppose from the way the Re
publicans put it-so unfair are they in their
statements-that everysDemocrat was seat
ed who contested. Now let US look into the
facts
Case of J. N. Stubs, DEM, vs.. J. T.
Ross, Mahoneite, Gloucester CO.; Ross re-
tanned. Case of J. H. Spengler, Dem, VS..
G. J. Grandstaff, Mahoneite, Shenandoah
CO. !; Grandstaff retained. Case of Hartman
Newberry, DEM, VS.. S. P. Mustard, Ma
honeite, Bland and Smyth Co.'S; Mahoneite
retained. Case of R. G. Griffin, York CO. !;
Ineligible, being Federal office-holder; al
lowed to retain his seat Case of Philip
Gibson, Dem, VS. II. Anderson, colored
Mahoneite, King William co.; the commit
tee found that Gibson did not take his evil
dence in the time prescribed and limited by
law, Ia mere technicality), and refused to
go into the merits of the case and retained
the colored man in his seat. In endeavor-
ing to be fair with the colored man they
were unfair to Mr.. Gibson,-so thought a
good many at the time.
Democrats seated Lawson, Dem, VS..
G liam, Mahoneite, Isle of Wight CO poll
book and ballots unsealed and not directed,
and kept over night by the son-in-law of
Ir,a ,@x-o
the book was not produced in evidence to
show it had not been mutilated.
Lawson, Dem, seated, case of D. Mott.
Robertson, Dem.,. VS.. Franklin, Mahoneite,
Appomattox CO.; ten illegal votes cast; the
parties were brought to the polls and their
right to vote advocated by Franklin's
friends, they voted and, the law presumed,
voted for Franklin. The majority of the
committee favored now election, and so
reported, but the House threw out these
ten illegal votes and seated Robertson, dem.
The Iowa case in the last Congress, ex-
actly similar, decision the same-Norfolk
case, Martin and Dalton, Dems., VS.. Banks
and Parker, Mahoneites; House ordered
new election. M. Crary, on elections, holds
''that if part of the voters should be pre-
vented from voting, or whatever prevents a
free and fair election, whether SO intended
or not, must render the election null and
void" The testimony was overwhelming
to this effect. Case Of Dyer, Mahoneite,
VS.. Prellow, DEM, Southampton county,
charge of bribery was made, also tamperilg
with returns; charges not sustained; Dem.
retains his seat. Case of Grattan and Soule,
Dem, VS. Harnsberger and Herring, Ma
honeites, Rockingham CO., Conrad's Store
precinct was thrown out for the following
reasons: 1st Poll was not opened for one
hour aud half, after sunrise, 2nd. Two of
the Judges electioneered during the day
among the voters, while the third judge
conducted alone the election, 3rd. The
registration books were not consulted and
fifty votes were cast Without transfers and
not accounted for by tho books of the pre-
cinet 4th. The judges violated the law in
not counting the vote together. In fact,
not one official act was legally done at this
precinct. The committee unanimously,
both Democrats and Republicans, voted to
reject the vote of this precinct and Grattan
case was decided by the Senate on the same
ground. The case of Clarke, Rep VS..
Vaughn, DEM, Goochland co., Snead's
Store precinct, was thrown out because the
evidence showed gross Irregularities and
utter dis yard of the law at said precinct.
The County Board gave the certificate to
Vaughn and the House confirmed the &C
ton Of the Committee.
The law governing such cases declares
that when the illegal votes can be purged
it should be done. In this case, without
the purging the returns Of the illegal votes
cast for Clarke, the confession, or the rejec-
ton of the vote of Snead's Store precinct,
would give the majority to Vaughn.
The case of Reynolds, DEM, vs.. Boiling,
Mahoneite, on the ground of non-residency,
was considered; inelligibility of Boiling
clearly established and new election or
dered. These are the facts proven by the
record, and he who sees them and yet con-
tlnues to misrepresent them creates false
impression willfully and maliciously.
Respectfully,
JOHN N. OPIE.
B. F. Lowman, Esq, Indiana, Pa, says
he used Powell's Prepared Chemicals last
AZ L L r..