The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-02-15

might be the most wicked man In the
world and he might approve In MS nina
of every crime denounced by the deca-
loguc. and yet II the. voters OF the le''"
district chose 20 send him to congress
his title TO his seat would be as good as
that OF the Reverend Doctor Everett.
But even If he actually participated III
producing the alterations OF names ueh
question affecting his right 10 MS
seat would be raised which no JUDGES
making their decision upon the principles
that underlie our laws, would ever un-
eoa. him on for the reason that the law
would say however wicked 1t might have
been in Mr.. Tucker 10 take part IN
proceeding OF that sort, still 1t could
not possibly. I'm the eye of the law ana
according 20 its provisions. have neces-
sarily miscd any voter because the law
had provided the special constable TO giVe
the illuerate voter correct information
concerning his ballot, and 1t was the
voters duty. If he was in doubt, to rely
upon that constable. and no tribunal con-
STRUNG law can assume mat the con-
stable would act dishonesty without
proof thereof. The act would be one go
ing to the discredit OF the election board
and OF the man Tucker. but not 90 the
integrity Of the election. II would be
an act for which the State might make a
law to punish the election officers ana
the candidate also, but as II was one
which could not, In the eye OF the law
affect the power Of the voter TO cast ms
ballot according TO his wishes because
the constable was present to prepare MS
ballot according to his wishes, no mat
tor how many different ballots there
were. the Integrity of the election "oui1
remain unassailed. the maxim OF the law
being "utHc per inuule non Vlua'ur'
# would be- as we have 80 olteh saiu'
,iiscreditable trick, because its purport
was IN make the state Of virginia at
tempt to mislead her own voters but as
the law had supplied means Tor me
correction of the trick. it would be one
that would work no legal injury TO any
ono. though IT would brng-as 1t mas
bronght-grcat scanda. on the good name
Of the state This we take TO be the
law Of tho case.
We warned the Dispatch yesterday
that it should be careful about inc &c
fences II undertook to set up FOR people
II said on Wednesday that the alter
mating of names would be a vital IN hg
to the cases of Messrs. Tucker, Otey' ana
AIcKenney. The Dispatch sees row that
IT would have conceded their cases out
of court when there were no occasion TOT
n at all. The trick which was practced
was. I'm our judgment, most discredlta-
bic one, but even If Messrs Tucker
Otey. and Mckinney had participated III
IT. still the election should not be re
vcrsed on that account. because, in the
laws eve. the constable was there, as the
Dispatch itself has insisted, to protect
the iliteraye voter even from his own
friends, and to nullify all EVIL conse-
ouences which wicked mon had plotted.
But we warned. the Dispatch, aud now
| repeat the warning, to be careful how 1t
| defends its friends. 1t is more Liable 10
| get them into trouble than to do them
| good. when defending them.
But. since questions are in order we
again ask the Dispatch why did it repre-
sent to the public that the Attorney
| General had given an opinion that the
! electoral boards might alternate names
on number of ballots at the same pre-
cinct. and that the Secretary of the
Commonwealth had sent this opinion "a
! the electoral board "for their gu dance.
when the Attorney-General had never
| given such an opinion. and, thought jus
the reverse and when the Secretary Of
| the Commonwealth had never sent out
| any such circular?