Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-02-01
Contested SEATS.
,rooprs PROM THE HOUSE. COMMITTEE
oypslvILSGTs AND ELECTIONS
-. r,rgs.t Retains He seat and Mr..
NeChuuc Declared Ineligible
action on the Report

NI iNkht ~ W. A'''NN' hhNV (UtM0-
l-.n retain his seat, which was contested
py Mr. hilSro.
The report is as follows:
y.flr HDusr Of Dclcgatcs of Firqi,,fn
yosr committee 20 whom was Referred
pcrtaonol James l.. Kilgro. contest
~. the seat of George W. Lcqgcst tbo
.tus member from the comfy of
Princess Anne, beg leave 10 report .bot
tc have carefully considered the seye.
u.uouads OF contest stated in said nett
tlu
All oi those relate to alleged frauds
and Irregularities az the Coultbonsn nrs.
clct and kcmpsyille precinct. AS far
o. tae Asi named precinct is concerned
tae charges are not sustained bv any
evidence, but IN explanation Of a failure
iots.c evidence the contestants counsel
stated before the committee that SO much
SINE was consumed in the taking Of do.
u. lions IN reference to the irregularities
a.touI.house precinct that the statutory
lnt expired before evidence could be
taken M regard to KempsUlle. Your
committee deem this no sufficient excuse
f.- failure 20 take such testimony. as
g was entirely legal for the contestant TO
mye proceeded at different places AT the
same time to have taken evidence.
ihe charges in regard to the Court
house precinct are as follows;
j. That at the voting precinct OF Prin-
cess Anne Courthouse, IN the Seaboard
district IN SAID county, certain persons
whose names are set forth in said notice.
aai being rs in number, were legally
registered and qualified voters. lawfully
entitled TO cast their votes at said cleo
non at sand voting precinct. and, being
such, were so accepted and cast their
votes for your petitioner for said Office on
sud eth day of November yet. notwith-
standing said votes were 80 cast for me
ss aforesaid, by the official returns for
,aid voting precinct your petitioner is
credited with only l5l ont OF n total vote
cast of 36S ; that had said votes Of said
persons been by tine judges Of election
lawfully counted for your petitioner. the
majority of said George ". Lc0gett over
yOur petitioner at SAID voting precinct
would have been only ~ instead of Co.
with which said George W. LePgett is
credited 10y smd returns and that ont
Of the total vote of 3GS only 100 we're law
fully cast for said George W. Leggett,
and all in excess thereof counted for
him, were Illegally so counted.
2. That at said voting precinct all Of
the judges OF election (uaming them be
longed to and openly affiliated with the
Democratic party. of which said George
W. LegRctt WI, the candidate, and no
one of them belonged ID oTailihated with
the Republican party, OF which your pc
tItlOner was the candidate. although it
was not only possible, but easily practi-
cable to appoint sand judges Of election
OF different political parties.
3. bat at said voung-precinct a large
number OF Illegal ballots, containing on
their face only the name Of George W.
Leggett, and not designating the Office
- which he was intended 10 be chosen,
were illegally cast and counted for said
George W. Leggctt, and that n further
large number OF the ballots cast at said
precinct and counted for said George W.
LeGgctt were SO torn and mutilatcd as
not TO bc i'm conformity with law.
10 sustain the first charge a large
number of persons voting at the Princess
Anne Courthouse precinct are introduced
as witnesses to prove that they voted for
or intended 10 vote for the contestant,
James T. hilgro. and in tins way TO falsi-
fy the returns of the Judges of election,
and thus TO show that fraud was perpe-
trated 10y said judges IN returning
larger number of votes for the cOntestee
than he actually received. OF the 36S
votes cast al the precinct, 1877 are brought
20 the witness.stand Ind say, sub
stautially, that they voted, or in
tended 10 vote for the contestant.
OF these 30 were white persons and -
cOlOred persons who said that they could
read and wute; the remainder, 60 in
number, all colored persons, could nei-
ther read nor write, and therefore could
not speak positively as to whether they
voted for the contestant or the cOntestee.
7 bus il viii be seen that if all of the per-
sons examined who could read and write
and, therefore. capable of stating for
whom they voted were counted for the
contestant, hisvote at the precinct would
have amounted to lis, whereas he Is
credited by the Judges with having re-
ceived lj4 votes, or 80 votes more than
the number who were able 10 swear pos
itiyely that they voted Tor the cOntes-
taut. This character Of testimony is
always to be accepted with the greatest
caution. especially when given 10y illitc-
rate and ignorant voters. People may
Ire frequently found, after an election is
over, VINO will state that they voted, or
intended 10 vote, IN way different from
that in which their ballots were actually
cast. 1t is laid down by the authorities
that the returns Of the vote OF given
precinct made In due form, and signed by
the proper officers, IS the best evidence
as 70 the state of tine vote, and that before
euch a return can be set aside there
must be clear proof that the proceedings
IN the conduct of the election, or IN the
return Of the vote, are so tainted with
fraud that the truth cannot be deduced
from the returns. See McCreary on
Elections. sections 1865. In section
439 the same author says "Tbe ballots
are the best evidence when II Is shown
or conceded that they are the identical
ballots. and all the ballots, deposited by
legal voters but when the question Is
whether fraudulent ballots have been de
posted or honest ballots distracted the
ballots in the box are by no means the
best evidence. In this case two pack
AGES purportmg 10 be the ballots cast IN
the late election at the two precincts
above referred to were produced before
the committee by the clerk of the Coun-
~ Court of Princess Anne countyin ODE
dience 10 an order Of the committee, but
these packages were not opened by the
committee for two TeasOnS-iirst be-
cause there was no evidence tracing
them from the custody OF the Judges of
election to the clerk, thus excluding the
idea Of fraud; and, second, because
neither side after the packages were
produced and actually before the com
mittee asked for an inspection Of
them. Upon this state Of facts,
in. the face Of returns regular in all re-
spects. and also in the face of the evi-
dence of the judges and clerks OF cleo
ton at the Princess Anne court house
precinct, your committee cannot pre-
sumo fraud and the substitution OF bal
lots, as charged 10y the contestant. They
"a. 4 thaf fba first QlnTpp