Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-02-02

sOl 50
SO that, upon tho vote actually cnst, Mr.. Love,
the contestant was elected by eleven majority.
When too Board Of County Canvasecrs assem-
hled o. canvass thc returns from The various
precincts all the returns we're found satisfactory
90 them except those from COlumban-Gfovo
precinct The rcturus from that precinct we're
informal IN The following particulars: The oeihs
tagcn bg the judges aud clerk we're signed but
not nttes,ed 10y any person, and he certificate Of
votes cast for the several candidates was not
signed by my Of The judges or clerks.
The County Board Of Cauvassers summoned
the judges and clerks 20 appear before Them
aud correct their returns. Tho Judges ana one
Of the clerks di1 appear before the Board oi
Canyasscr~, but for some reason satisfactory 10
themselves they would not sign the returns,
and The Board Of Canvassers then proceeded to
canvass the returns from the other precincts,
which footed up iO7 votes for mo sitting member
/ ani 10l votes for Mr. Love, which was duly ccrti-
fed, ana The certificate was Issued 70 Mr.
Overby.
Mr. Love contested. and we are clearly Of the
opinion upon the evidence IN the cause mat he
is entitled 20 have the poll AT the Columbian
Grove counted iu his tRNor u f. unnecessary
10 discuss the act on OF the judges and clerks az
Columbian Grove precinct Ia first failing TO
mako proper returns and then refusing 10 put
their returns ln proper shape. Ihey were ali
duly sworn. hut 10 n claimed toy thcm that thelr
aeiOl In 30 ling 20 certify the returns in due
form ia tho first instnnce WAS through mad
vcrien,e 0nd not from design. The reason A.
tiEu"i iN INln Tor lfiNNlnE TO correct iLtI IT,
turns when called upon % do so Tes that some
question had been raised after the election a 10
whether they were the lawful judges. II ap-
pears that on the morning Of election one or
more Of the regularly appointed judges At the
precinct were not present at sunrise and that the
Judges who acted were sworn in and proceeded
with the election before an hour after sunrise
had elapsed. OF the three judges and two
clerks Who acted four we're friends of Mr..
Oycrby. There is not only no sufficient evidence
that any fraud was prac;iced there, hut the con-
current testimony Of all parties Is 10 the eiiA
tnat the votes were honestly received, cast. and
counted at this precinct, aud that iu truth and in
fact Mr. Love received AZ that precinct ll9 votes
aud Mir. overly I02. The men who give this
statement are not partisans Of Mr.. Love. 1hey
are. without exception. his political opponents.
Ihcre was sOmo testimony 10 tho effect that
persons other than the election officers were al
mitted into The voting place during the day ana
that IN outsider aided in the count OF the bal
lOls Exactly at what sinee of the count this was
done was not clear. bat IL seems that It was done
after the first count was had and two ballots mad
hecn drawn out 10 make the ballots tally with
the polled list Of voters. The ballots drawn out
were bOth for Mr. Love; and afterwards there
being two ballots folded together they were de-
strOyed and a third ballot was drawn it also
being loss 20 Mr.. Love But there was no So
roIs attempt in any OF the testimony taken 10
east doubt upon tho truth OF the vote n II was
counted and the witnesses who mentioned these
irregularities refused without exception to say
that they believed or hsi any reason 10 believe
that any fraud or irregularity was pracuced nj
tho precinct.
Tie action Of the judges in allowing any person
other than themselves TO handle or count the
ballots cannot be too strongly condemned, and
if thCrC was evidence tending 20 prove that fraud
was committed by such person We should reuse
10 count the vote ~ the precinct But IN the hb-
acnco Of such eyiiCnce we do not feel authorized
10 reject The poll ON that ground.
The other and more serious question raised IN
the re ord is "a TO the effect upon the election Of
the acting Of judges not regularly appointed or
authorized TO at as such. While it J. not claim
el thnt these Judges were such a. JUTc IL Is in
sisted that they we've not mere asurpera, whose
acts would be VOID hut Judges de f1rfo, whose
acts must bs respected as binding upon the pub
lie and upon individuals.
Tho decisions OF the courts with ono voice hold
that The validity Of tlea'ts of officers OF election
who are such de fGrf0 only arc bnliuc and
conclusive. NcCrary on Elections, section ~
and cases there cited. But the decisions in Con-
crcss previous 20 1870 have been by TO means
uniform, gn1 many ca.es may be found where
the poll of an election precinct was rejected on
tho ground that the judges OF election were
mot surn dc JUT' Since that dale' now
ever ,lsIG. the question has frequently arisen
aud the House of Representatives. Inns uni
fOrmly decided according 10 the rule laid down
bv the courts, even Ia ca-c5 Whcn me appiica-
ton of the rule seated or unseaiel, as the case
might be. n political opponent In the cas-" OF
Epglc-tOn as. Siradcr y Bartlett 80 decided
without division II favor ~ member OF The
minority, the unanimous report OF mo commit
tee states the law on this subject as follows ::
" Bat the contestant claims that Fle1 e1eldhF was
not an oflcer or Judge de fdct1 and his counsel
has made an ingenious argument before The
I committee on the ground thar fiedclday was an
intruder or usurpcr WithOdt color OF right
uasing his argument largely upon the view that
thero wa no vacancy in the Office of Judge OF
elections. aud that there Is no such oiAcer known
in OHIO a. temporary judge. But De seems Tor
the time 20 lose sight o. the distinction between
au officer dc drio and IA officer df iUr6, aud some
of The cases hc cites relate 20 the ques-
tiOu as TO AZ ollcer dc JWc ana not
l ds flc-o. 10 takes nut little 10 consul
tute an officer 10 fGcio affects the right OF The
public The exercise Of apparent authority un-
der color Ol reh,. thu inviting public trust an
necauviug the idea oi usurpalon, is SuILcient .
IN tue case bc'olo as there wss no protest uf
any voter that the persons acting IA judges were
no; authorized 10 act as such. Everybody, even
the logalIy-appOintCd judges them selye-, not
only q quicsced hut fully recognized them "a
proper officers, and one Of the lcsaliy-apponte1
Judges, whonO doubf with that object 10 view,
as the evidence shows, was an active worker at
the polls for Mr. Oyerby There Is no claim mat
the acting Judges were unfair in conducting the
election or I'm ascertaining tho result III there
had been any protest % their agilrg made by
even few Of the voters. or II there was cNi-
dence tending even 70 snow untalrnes- 10 tAcSlt-
ting member, or acts OF partsansh'p ior the con-
teqfAnt, We would b0 slow 70 count the re
cinct for him II The votes of citizens are freely
aud fairly given az the time and place pre- scribed
1 by law 20 judges universally yrecognized by Them
a. competent officers OF election the intent and
design OF tho election are accomplished. Ihe
win OF the electors thus expressed Is not 10 Oe
defeated but effectuGted by giving the once 10
the majority candidate.
We are, therefore, constrained TO conclude on
reason and authority that the vote at Columbian
Grove precinct must be counted.
The sitting member when nouhed OF lie con-
test, filed an answer, in which, besides resisting
the contestants claIin 10 have The vote cast az
Columbian Grove counted, he made counter
charges a. % Browns Store precinct. lie claimed
that contestant or his friends at thai precinct
"fraudulcatly. and with the inteption 10 deceive
the voters and 20 defTdud me- (niml banded a
number Of voters 40 least ten ballots represent
ing that they contained my lh.al name, when
hey contained yours dove 81, and vcro thus
fraudulenuy induced to vote for you IoveI As
{ specification Of this charge be alleged tuat en-
[ fcsfaut had cut down he Republican ticket, 10
/ the size Of tho Democratic tickets aud deceived
| at least ten voters. He also charged contestant
or his friends had deco iYed a least three Of his
/ (Overtysl friends into voting blank tickets, be-
licvuC they were voting for him.
AftCr the case had been argued upon tho evil
dence contained In The printed record the con-
testeo lMr Ovcrby) hled an AFFIDAVIT. IN which
he stated substantially that he had been unable
10 examine four witnesses daring the time al
lowed by law for he taxing OF testimony by
reason OF the unnecessary CONSUMPTION oi ume
by Mr. Loves counsel IN taking exceptions and
arguing tho same before tho justice or rotary
taking The evidence. and also stated that Oy
these four Witnesses hc mlgnt have shown and
I could now show. ita+ nj lcA5i hlA voters VINO
voted at the Browns Store precinct were o.
ceived by Mr. Love and his friends and induced
ta vote for Mr. Love by means Of ;he cut or
clipped tickets. whereas they intended . vote
for Mr. OVerly. White some OF tho committee
cOntended that no additional testimony should
be allowed, yet majority wero clearly Of
opinion that an opportunity, under the
circumstance. ought 10 20 allowed the ccn-
tes'ants % take further testimony and show
fraud. IL such IN fact existed. After the allow
ance OF the most ample time and delay OF two
weeks, during which a largo mass OF testimony
was takeu for the contesiee. as wcll as FOR the
contestant. your committee resumed the con-
slderstiou of the case aud alter q careful exHmi-
nation of the evidence Hdduced are constrained
to say that II does not establish the allegation OF
fraud. The judges OF election say with one
voice that they know Of no fra ID or deception
prartice nron any voter, and that they do not
believe that any was committed Mr.. j. 4. Tis-
dale the Democratic nominee for the Senate In
the 4 wenty-eighh senatorial district. states that
be was present az the Browns Store precinct on
the day Of election, and says that he knows Of
nothing aud nGs heard Of nothing that Induces
him 10 believe that voters were deceived ~ tho
precinct by the use Of the cat or clipped
t,ekots and that no Iuly concurs IN what
was said oy w. L. Bridgeforth, one OF the
iudges OF election, 70 he same effect hr.