Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-04-25

| did not agree exactly with his fellow at
/ torney on behalf OF Colonel Coode. Judge
/ Harris. as shown above. was pretty handy
J In charging the people OF the district
| with wholesale frauds In the interest of
| Mr.. Epes.
MR. BRENT DIPLOMATIC.
| Mr.. Brent started out boldly by saying
he did not charge fraud on the part OF
| the Democrats Of the Fourth District
/ lie was both careful and diplomatic, and
/ smoothed the thing over and vanished
/ II exquisi,ely by asserting that he be-
! lieyed the boards had thrown out the
/ precincts under "a misapprehension Of
duty" once more Mr.. Brent said he
| charged no fraud. and then he went on
{ 10 explain the election laws of Virginia,
and some Of the difficulties counsel for
contestant had In taking testimony and
getting counsel for the other side TO
; come TO the scratch" as Il were
Mr.. Brent spoke most fiuently and
/ forcibly IN the brief time he occupied-not
more than ten minutes in all
MR.. EPES.
He was followed by Hon. James f.
! Epeg. who spoke in his own behalf He
referred to the briefs and records In the
case. and alluded 10 the charges that had
/ been made against him and his party.
! As to the thirty-two rejected precincts.
he said they would have to be Judged by
| the committee on the record. That record
! INDUCED in abuse Of the judges Of cleo
! tion. The. thirty-two precincts alluded to
! were scattered over ten counties. Why
aid not the contestants attorneys ex-
! anime the commissioners OF election, and
! find ont IL the precincts had been rejected? /?
| In only a few instances did they examine
/ the commissioners II was easy to make
charges. but the proof should be produced,
! and they had not done II. Only sixteen
! Of the judges were examined.
There were ninety-six judges. and yet
! they examined only sixteen. and TO only
4 three OF the judges were the poll-books
exhibited. If the precincts had been re-
| jccted the judges could have been exam
! ined. and yet contestant in his brief con-
| tented himself with abusing the commis-
( siOncrs because they Uhe commissioners)
( did not summon the judges and examine
them. When the depositions were taken
I i'm the various counties II would have been
! an easy matter for the contestant and
1 his attorneys to have gotten the testi-
mony OF the judges. The eighty judges
/ OF election who were not examined are
witnesses now in this case.
Mr. Epes then read from the record in
| previous case. when Judge Harris was
I an attorney before the Elections Commit
tee, 10 show that the eX-member had very
different opinions then from those hs
I holds now.
1t seems the point Judge Harris made.
and TO which Mr.. Epes referred, was that
| judges of election should have been ex-
! nmincd.
Mr. Epes took up some Of the testi-
mony I'm the record in regard to the re-
turns at precincts in various counties of
the district. and had the committee fol-
low him carefully as he attempted TO
show that contestants attorneys had not
proved their charges. The testimony, he
contended. showed that In repeated in
stances the ballots and poll-lists were not
sealed. as the law required Ballots. as
the commissioners testified, were brought
10 them in coils and rolls. and were dis
arranged. No one would receive an ex-
press-package even that was broken open
and not sealed.
The statute of Virginia was mandatory
| on the contestant and his attorneys to
snow how the ballots happened to be
I broken open. In Brunswick county, for
! instance. they did not examine Clerk
/ Turnbull. when 1t could most easily have
/ been done.
/ MIR Epes also contended that It was
necessary for the contestant to have pro-
duced the ballots. but they made no effort
In this direction.
| Mr.. Epes spoke with much vigor and
! force. and was listened TO with the
| greatest interest by the members of the
committee.
JUDGE MANN'S ARGUMENT.
Judge Mann followed Mr.. Epes in an
argument of more than fifty minutes.
He assumed as counsel for contestee the
full responsibility for the conduct of the
case on behalf Of his client. He referred
to the counties comprising the Fourth
District and reminded the committee that
IL was in the section OF the state known
as the black belt" There was "a tre-
mendous negro population, but he thanked
God the negroes were at last beginning
to recognize the people who were really
friendly To them. and were voting the
Democratic ticket If Goode was elected
as claimed. he must have received over
10000 Republican votes, and he did not
believe this for Weaver and Field re-
ceived only about LOO votes in the entire
district. The platform of the Populist
party being at such variance with the
platform of the Republican party, 1t was
| not probable that all these Republicans
voted for Goode.
When the contest was begun, Judge
| Mann said, Mr. Thorp. the counsel OF
! Colonel Goode, wrote Mr. Epes letter
| full of ambiguity. Finally. after much
| correspondence. Colonel Goode refused 10
60 into the matter and count the ballots.
| In answer to direct question asked by
| Mr.. Lockwood. Of New York. Judge Mann
| stated there was not a recount or the
| baIIots Contestee and his attorneys pro-
posed a recount. but Colonel Goode was
not willing
Then Mr.. Patterson. of Tennessee, asked
| ~ tho nrecincts referred to had been really
| thrown out.
To this Judge Mann said he held with
| MIR. Epes that the record did not show
mat the precincts had been thrown out.
In reply TO a question II there was any
| law 20 compel recount Judge Mann SAID
| they could have had recount py cohces-
sion of the conteStee.
| I,,ago Mann said The theory Of his client
and himself was that the Republicans Of
| the district would not support the Third
| Marty and form an alliance with tnem.
| 'rhev believed that they had not voted
! the Populist ticket. and on that theory
were perfectly willing 10 have recount,
| for they were confident that James f.
Epes had received clear majority OF
| the votes cast
Judge Mann told the committee also
! that his side submitted proposition TO
! ,ha other side that would have settled
|
| from ever having come before the COM
mittee. ,,,,
MANN AGAINST HARRIS.
bdce Mann and Judge Harris had a
| lively argument over a little record the
| latter made when he was "A member or
| the Elections Committee OF the House.
Judge Mann. with evident glee, read the
opinions of Judge Harris as then eN-
messed but so different from the posi-
! tion taken by him to-day as one or couh-
! sci for j. Thomas Goode. Popuiist con-
testant from the Fourth Virginia Dis
/ trict. ,, -, 49,,
! Judge Mann said there could have been
q recount There was recourse TO the
courts even If contestee had resisted a
| recount. Contestant had plenty OF time
| and i'm each and every instance man
/ damus could have been obtained compeii-
/ ing the judges OF election to make the
| correct returns. If they had such good
case why did not they apply TO the courts !
! Judge Mann said his side took no tesu-
mony. for the reason that they considered
/ IL entirely unnecessary.
! In asking all the questions complained
nNN1