Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-05-23
DYING HARD.
ANOTHER REPUBLICAN PETITION FOR
MANDAMUs IN PETERsBURe.
Charges that the Political Parties Have
Not Been Equally Recognizable
Dinwiddis Boy Honored.
Correspondents Of the Richmond Dispa.ch.l

Correspondence Of the Richmond Dispatch.l
PETERsBURo, Va, May 90, 1883.
As stated in my letter yesterday would be
the case. papers were this morning served
on Mr.. George w. Eanes and Myer Saal, the
two gentlemen composing the Electoral
Board OF this city. summoning them TO ap-
pear before Judge Bernard, OF the Hastings
Court, to show cause why a writ Of man.
damus should not be Issued to compel them
10 appoint Judges OF election in the several
wards OF the city In strict compliance with
the law. The petitioner in the case
is Mr.. j. W. Couch, the Republican
candidate for reelection to the Office
OF city treasurer, who alleges that In
addition TO the interest which he has in the
approaching election, as citizen and vo.
ter has also a special interest in having said
election conducted by proper and competent
election officers, duly aud properly chosen,
and in having said election ia all respects
conducted in the manner and as required
by law. The petitioner further represents
that the Acts OF Assembly require the
Judges OF election 10 be appointed 10
I've competent citizens, qualified voters,
TO be chosen where It IS possible TO be
90 done for each voting-place from persons
k1own TO belong to different political par
ties, and 10 be each able TO read and write.
The petitioner further represents that In each
Of the election districts OF this city there are
q large number OF competent citizens, quail
fed voters thereof, able 10 read and write,
belonging 10 each OF the two political par
ties, aud that II was possible, and indeed
easy for the Electoral Board TO have selected
and appointed legally competent persons 10
bs judges OF election At each Of the Nonhg-
places in the city from the different political
parties. The petitioner then charges that
in utter disregard OF the expressed
provisions OF the law, and ia violation OF its
duty az thereby prescribed, the Electoral
Board has neglected and failed 10 select and
appoint for the elections 10 be held during
this year competent judges a. required by law
from the different politlcsi parties, but on rae
contrary have selected and appointed as
judges OF election 10 the voting precincts OF
the First and Fifth wards those who be-
long to the Democratic party. In this
state Of facts the petitioner represents that
he is without remedy unless the Court will
award him writ Of mandamus directing
the Electoral Board forthwith to make APP
pointmenis OF Judges OF election In these
wards 10 the manner aud rs required by law
from persons known to the board to belong
to different political parties. aud therefore
prays that process may issue.
1t may be here stated that counsel for the
petitioner sought yesterday to bring in these
questions, but the judge ruled them out az
irrelevant TO the issue made by the pleadings,
and appeals were taken. The above sum-
mons was made returnabls Al IL O'Clock to-
day, but Judge Bernard being too unwell TO
sit adjourned the case until 1880 p. n.
The court met al p. NJ, when the petit
| ton Of J. w. Couch for 4 maHdamus against
the Electoral Board was presented and &C.
| ton asked thereon. Nr. X. =. Davis, COUP
| sci for the board, ssd that he bad carefully
examined the petition aud believed that The
desire OF the petitioner was to have the Court
| supervise the action 81 the board and
| correct the same in the matter OF the
/ appointment OF Judges. lie therefore filed
| a demurrer and answer. lie demurred to
| the petition A. insufficient. TIE answer de-
| MED TIE allegations OF the petition, ayoved
| that the Judges in the First and Filth Wards
bad been duly sppointed that IN order to
properly discharge their duties IN the
! premises the board did inquire as to toe
political status OF the said judges, and
| that they were appointed under the benei
that they did belong to the different political
parties. The appointments we're therefore
made IN good faith, and, believing that th'
| Court has no power to reverse the action Of
the board, the answer prays that the pro
ceedings may be dismissed.
Counsel for petitioner excepted 10 tb'
answer OF the board because 1t combined
! with il n demurrer, which is forbidden by
the statute. They should be separate. Il
this Mr.. Davis replied that the two pleading
were separate, though written on the same
paper, and The Court so held. The case
vas then argued at length. Counsel f)l
the board held that the Electoral Board arc
Z Ministerial body for whose action iudg
ment and discretion were necessary, and
that, therefore, in their case maudamu'
could not lie. Counsel for petitioner argued
that it was shown that the board had no
performed a plain, imperative duty, snC
that = mlndlmus would lie to compel then
10 do so.
The Court sustained the demurrer aBC
dismissed the proceedings, and ia doing SC
the Judge said that this whole preceding
! led 10 to the question Of mems politics. il
would be difficult matter TO decide tht
politics Of a great many men. by the Law
| the Electoral Board are made the head Of tht
political machinery Of the State, aud to theil
Judgment and discretion are conldet
the appontment OF men suitable e
act as judges OF election. The bot
tom OF this case is whether th'
Judges appointed are Democrats or Repub
| leans. To reverse the appointments would
be to substitute the Judgment and discretion
OF the Court for that Of the board, WHERE
the Legislature has placed it. 1t would b
usurpation on the part ei tae Court 10 do so
The board are creatures Of the Legislature
and for improper conduct can be impeacheC
| By the Legislature.
Counsel for the petitioner took an appea
to the supreme Court.
DYING HARD.
The Republicans are making hard fight
It il apparent that they see the b2ndwrtin!
| ON the wall. md nnnrehsnd their deicai a