The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-02-28
flick THAT FLINT AND TRY AGAIN.

The Dispatch gave on Sunday. as part
OF the broadside II fired at The Times,
an anony nous letter from Amelia county,
which scored The Times for making It
appear that fraud had been practiced in
the election returns from this county IN
the Epes-Goode election i'm 1892" 1t refers
20 The Times OF the preceding Sunday as
The issue complained Of We have gone
over that issue Of The Times, and do not
zee Amelia county referred TO in it in
connection with any election. There Is
an article, however, in it on the extra
ordinary conduct OF the county returning
boards in the Fourth congressional dis
trict in throwing Goode precincts out in
that election, and as Amelia was one OF
the counties in the district in which that
was done we suppose the Dispatchs cor
respondent knew Amelia was hit, though
not named. and he therefore took up
cudgels that had better have been left as
they were. But since il is done, and The
Times is therefore attacked. The Times
will state from the record of the con-
exactly what took place in Amelia in that
election.
There are eight election precincts in
Amelia county, and, when the county re-
turning board came to count up the votes
received by Goode and those received by
Epes 1t threw out and refused to count
the votes cast at Wilkinson shop, Brids-
forth Mill. and Namozine. except that
they seem to have allowed Epes his vote
at Namozine while refusing TO allow
Goode his. Goodies votes at the three re-
jected precincts was $50 while Epes a.,
of which he seems TO have been allowed
II cast at Namozine. There was no pre-
tence whatever that there was any ir-
regularity or fraud or unfairness in the
election at either one of these precincts.
1t was proved that the election was fun
and fair at each one, and that Epes was
given the benefit of every vote cast for
him. and Goode likewise. The returning
board for the county refused to count
the vote at Bridgforth' Mil and Wilkinson
shop because the judges OF election had
not sealed up the poil-books and ballots
when they sent them 10 the clerks office.
We have remarked on this so frequently
before that no extended comment on 1t
IN necessary here. The statute is express
that n any matters Of form of this sort
are neglected by the election officers the
returning board shall summon these cleo
ton officers before them and require them
10 amend the same. But. independently
OF that. the returning boards have nothing
whatever TO do with the way In which the
officers that conduct an election perform
their duties. The returning boards must
count the votes as the election officers
certify TO them that they have been cast,
and III any irregularity took place that
affected the merits Of the election. that
must be judged OF afterwards in con-
tested election and In contested election
no sort Of regard would be paid to whether
the judges sealed up the poll-books or
whether they did not, If each candidate
was really given the benefit OF al the
votes that lie received and no more. II
the judges of election fail TO perform a
duty like that OF sealing the poll-books
up they make themselves liable to pun
ishment for failure OF duty. and that is
all.
But fagrant as this action was. II was
a trinc as compared with that In respect
10 Namozine precinct. Three tickets were
voted for at that precinct-one headed
Democratic ticket" one headed "KepubIi-
can ticket" and one headed Peoples