Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-02-06
AlleRed Frauds in Uenr.co.

The Times in us last issue devotes
hroadside 10 an expose Of frauds alleged
by Il 10 have been committed al smith
cr's Precinct. on the Mechanicsyille turn
pike. In the county Of Henrico.
The charge Is that the registrar had
hundreds Of Illegal names on the wh'e
registration-boo and that the three
Judges Of election and their two clerks
extended tho poll-book list with names
OF these bogus voters. and then stuffed the
haliot.ybox with Democratic ballots SUI
iicient 20 produce The result That they
wished In this way the Times AYERS
that Smiihcr's Precinct was made TO
give a Democratic majority Of several
hundred.
TO support its charges the Times prints
copious extracts from the poll and re-
gistration-bool1s To show that men who
are dead and men who have long since
removed from HenTico were voted
The Times makes "A prima-facie case
against the registrar judges and clerks
at Smlthcre. and Judge Minor and Com
monwealth's -Attorney Sands (who is also
a state senator VIII, no doubt, do what
duty demands.
While the Times makes out case
which would possibly warrant the indict-
ment AMI prosecution Of the accused. It
makes no case at all that we can see
as against the Anderson-M Mccormick law.
TO do that 1t must show that fraud such
as that alleged at Smithers could not
have been committed under the old sys-
TEN. This it cannot do, for II must re-
member the charges made by the Repub-
Hcans when MIR. Goode ran against Plat
and when Alr. Hinton ran against Jorgen-
son But "A case more particularly in
point occurred right here in Richmond
at McDougalrs Precinct during the John
son knight contest. There, II was al
legged all the ballots put into the box for
Knight were taken out and substituted
by ballots that had never been cast but
which II was intended $50 1t was al
lered) should produce the result wished
for by opponents OF Knight.
Now the only difference I'm the al
legged fraud at Smithers and the alleged
fraud at McDougalls is that in the latter
case many white voters were cheated
out Of their votes and in the former those
cheated were negroes chiefly.
The machinery TO punish fraud when
existed IN the time of the Johnson knight
contest exists now. Judge Minor and his
grand jury are as potential in Henrico
as were Judge Guigon and his grand jury
IN Richmond. The Senate OF Virginia can
inquire into the right Of Mr.. Sands TO
hold his seat in the Senate. or the House
can inquire into the right OF Mr.. Binford
10 hold his seat there just as the Senate
aforetlme inquired into the right OF Gene
raj Bradley Johnson 10 hold his seat in
that body. TO US there seems not the
shade of a doubt that justice can and
will be as well administered now as II
was then If so where is the Times's case
against the Anderson-Mcc law?
While we cite the Johnson-Knight
case--and do so because IL is very IA
niIiar one-we could cite many others
equally apt TO show that it is by no
means true that the Anderson-McCormick
law brought upon Virginia condition
which the Times laments and greatly ex-
aggerates. Some of these cases occurred
In Richmond. in Jackson Ward mainly
The modus operandi was not always the
same. but the Times will hardly dispute
that the motive was the same and the
violation of law was the same: that is.
IL what our enemies said OF us was
true.
There are more than twelve hundred
voting precincts in Virginia, and though
the Times has been at work since the
gubernatorial election 1t has made n
prima-facie case at one precinct only!
Scarcely enough. we should think. TO
condemn our whole system or TO Justify |
its standing charges that elections are |
frauds and farces in Tidewater and |
Southsde Virginia. However the Times |
promises us further disclosures. Nothing |
could exceed its cheerfulness and dill |
gence In bringing 10 light the sins OF the |
Democratic party Of Virginia. In the |
opinion OF many persons no other paper |
that ever engaged in this work aid 1t |
half 30 well az the Times is doing 1t.
We know that the Times despairs of
plains by appealing TO the grand juries,
for Il has poor opinion Of our grand
juries In Tidewater and Southside Virgin
ia. II has mighty poor opinion also
OF the Virginia General Assembly. 1t
thinks that the General Assembly ought |
10 repeal this Anderson-M Mccormick law
but evidently II has scant hopes In that
direction. Everywhere II sees the power
OF the machine" Then IL must appeal
10 the people. but what IL the use Of that
II the voice OF the people Is stifled by
"bsi,ot-box stuffers?'
The Times has allowed it's nerves to
become unstrung over the last election.
and needs rest and recreation; rest from
its incessant belaboring OF the Democratic
party, recreation where it's sight VIII
not o. offended by the presence OF
"baliot-box suffer" or Its ear outraged
by the grind of the machine"