The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-11-30

honest. in the popular estimation under
the former law than they were uuu.'
| Tho Mccormick act; In other words
were the Judges and registrars appointed
| hy the County Courts generally believed
/ "a no more trustworthy than those APP
| pointed by the electoral boarLs.
| We recoIlcct very few complaints OF
| frauds IN our elections untn the Ander-
| son-Mccormlck law went into effect we
| can recall very few contests In the Legs
lature in which there were serious ai'ee"-
| lions OF fraud. We can answer them III
general way. that there was. until 1884,
yeneral confidence In our electoral Sys-
tom hut that there Is now general ols-
trust OF IL, from which II would io'io"
that the Judges and registrars appoin'''
by the County Courts were generaiiy De-
bevea 70 be more trustworthy than those
appolnted by the electoral boards
The Dispatch next says;
80 II the alleged dishonesty IS impu'aoie
IN the law. II must be because the ap-
pointing power is as corrupt as us APP
nointees. DO you make this charSe'
II might be or it might not be. The
electoral board consists OF three one
dishonest member having the commence
n the other two may run the whoie
business in the interest Of fraud anu
the other two may know nothing OF IT,
The Dispatch continues:
"a II the old law should he restored -
there any guarantee that the courts "ouIu
be less Influenced by partisan bias lhdh
the electoral boards. and wOulu hot INC
possession Of the appointing power nave
n tendency 30 corrupt the Judges H'eNi
selves? Judges invariably exercise theiI
discretion in favor Of the political party
under which they hold Office; in other
words they carry their politics with
them on the bench, and shrink from no
service to their party which does not IN,
voIve a plain violation Of the Juulciai
oath. There is difference between
political Judge and judicial poiili0iah'
but the same person may be Doth'
II is absolutely certain that they would
not ba There is something in the judi
cial office which makes man an honest
officer in spite of himself When ne Is
made a Judge he is TO decide between par
ties under the command Of the laws The
fact that ne rests in the public eye as a
functionary of that character, that MS
acts must all take place In open court
before the whole world. that they are
all recorded and that they are all open
10 review and reversal 10y a power above
him-these constitute a safeguard against
corrupt and partisan action In Judse
OF a court which a partisan electoral
board, holding secret meetings and ac-
countable to no one. knows nothing OF.
In the contested-election case Of Knight
VS.. Johnson one Of the judges Of the cleo
ton was indicted in the Hastings Court OF
this city for taking part in fraudulentiy
putting ballots into the box. He was
tried and acquitted. Notwithstanding the
acquittal the late Judge Guigon, who was
then judge of the Hastings Court took
proceedings against him to remove him
from the Office of judge of elections.
His counsel applied 10 the Court Of APP
peals for a writ Of prohibition. They
said the man had been acquitted by a
jury, and 1t lay in the mouth of no man
" say hc wac builNg' A'ul NhS CoNiS VI
Appeals answered that the judge was the
guardian of the elections. and if he was
satisfied the man was dishonest, that was
cause enough for his removal, and Judge
Guigon removed him. The act was one
Of the healthiest ever performed in Rich
mond and had much to do with the puri-
ty of elections we had in Richmond for
a long time after. 1t is a fair sample Of
the difference between elections being I'M
der the control Of the open courts and
under the control of partisan electoral
boards whose proceedings are all secret.