The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-02-10
HE TIMES CRITICS CALLED TO
BOOK


Whatever else the letters OF Judge D. |
S. Hicks and Mr.. William j.. Price, OF
Brunswick county, published In yester-
days Dispatch mean, they certainty mean
condemnation Of the Times FOR its course
IN demanding an amendment In our cleo
ton laws which. will make cheating in
elections impossible. or, at least Judge
Hicks does. AS these two gentle
men have volunteered to take part
IN this controversy they cannot complain
Of the Times for calling upon them to
defend their own locality against what is
charged against 1t, nor can they complain
of the Times for stating those charges as
plainly as possible with the evidence upon
which they rest.
We, therefore, ask Judge Hicks and
MIR. Price whether they approve OF what
the county boards OF commissioners of
election In their congressional district
did In canyassing the votes cast In the
congressional election in the fan of ls.c,
between Epps and Goode. ana whether
they approve of what the said board
wick county.
And without waving an answer 10 eth
er Of these questions, but expressly In
sisting upon an answer TO EACH We shall
state what took place as 1t appears In
the record of the contested election now
pending before the House OF representa-
lives between Messrs. Goode ana Epps.
That record shows that the election
was Only and regularly held at every pre-
cinct In the district and the number OF
votes cast In 1t was certified by the OIL
GERS who held the election - the clerks
OF the different counties as the law dt
reefs. The iaw further directs that
hoard consisting of five OF the judge
Of election in each county, whom IN
electoral board has appointed, ana calle'
the commissioners of election. shall NICE
at the court house of their counties aftc
an election. open and inspect the rs
turns which have been made by III
officers who conducted the election. an
ascertain from those returns who has re
ceived the greatest number of votes an
certify that result.
In the election aforesaid $500 vote
were cast. Of which Goode received
majority of I'LL. There arc ninety-eigf
voting precincts In the counties of III
district outside of the city OF Peter:
burg. The commissioners OF election
nine of the counties refused to consi
err the votes that were cast at thirty-oi
OF the ninety~eIght precincts In those coul
ties. all OF which had given considers
bile maiorities 20 Goode except two, al
these had given majority for Epps
twenty-five After throwing out the
twcnty-nine precincts that had Siv'
Goode majorities. they destroyed bis m
jorlty In the district. and found majo
i,y OF sss for Epps.
Now, this was nothing but whoiesi
Acknowledgement OF the voters at thirt
one OF the ninety-elght voting precinC
IN those counties. And for what reas
wan this done? II was done upon the mo
frivolous pretexts as In one case n
the officers who conducted the elects
had sealed up the returns on the 81
instead Of at the end. and In anoti
because the package had got little "
ana become partially unseaied. and
equally frivolous pretexts as to the rs
There was no pretence that the vo
had not been certified to these comm
sioners ~ they were cast. The retul
were rejected In every case for 30