Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-03-05

main fact In issue-namely. the rightful
action OF the commissioners Of election
was sought in the deposltions Of witnesses
who had no necessary connection with
the commissioners. and whose knowledge
Of the main fact must have been second
ary and not original.
IF we had been advised OF the grounds
on which the commissioners predicated
their action In all the counties. as we
were in two OF them we could have gone
behind their action and determined
whether their reasons were legal or ilIe-
gal; but, without any clear light on the
subject in some OF the counties. we were
Obliged TO presume that the decision of the
commissioners was correct. The COM
mittee can only report cases on the evil
dence furnished by the parties We can
neither make the evidence nor improve
the quality. nor supply the deficiency OF
that furnished us.
I'VE find that I'm the precincts wrong
fully rejected the contestant received
majority OF ei3 votes. and that when
these are deducted from the majority
OF the contestee In the district that the
contestee was elected by 2i5 votes.
Wherefore. We recommend the adop-
tion OF the following resolution:
Resolved. That j. r. GoOde was not
elected a member Of the F'ifty-thlrd Con-
gress from the Fourth Congressional Dis
trict Of Virginia. and Is not entitled 10
a seat therein.
Resolved. That James F. Epes was
elected a member OF the Fifty-third Con-
gress from the Fourth Congressional Dis
trict OF Virginia, and Is entitled 10 his
seat therein"
MINORITY REPORT
The views of the minority or Republl-
can members OF the committee fll nine
teen printed pages. and were presented
10 the House by Judge Daniels. OF New
York. II goes into minute details in the
effort 10 show that Colonel Goode was
deprived of the election by county can
vassing boards These are the same
boards which Judge John r. Har-
ris said in his argument before the
committee had defrauded Colonel Goode
and counted I'm Mr.. Epes but Mr. Samuel
c. Brent Of Alexandria, who was assO-
ciated with Judge Harris In tho case.
made the point that the boards had only
acted under n mlsapprehens'On OF their
duties" and was careful TO state that he
did not charge fraud.
The report made by Judge Daniels con-
cludes as follows:
The plurality for Mr. GOode I'm the
rejected precincts. not Including Sussex
and Dinwd1le counties or the Trotter's
Store Precinct IN Brunswick county. and
adding for Mr.. Epes the plurality in
Henry Precinct Is at least 49, Deductng
from that plurality the SIS plurality given
10 Mr.. Epes and the plurality for Mr..
Goode Is - votes I'm these precincts.
Adding to that plurality the pluralities
for GOOde In five precincts ~ Sussex
county. leaving the plurality In the
Henry Precinct To Mr.. t.pes the GOode
pluralities In that county being 3ji. and
N no IT,
trict is AZ. clearly emitting him TO the
contested seat
1T should be said here In Justice 10 the
judges and clerks Of the several precincts.
most OF whom wore Democrats. that they
appear 10 have exercised their authority
and discharged their various duties with
fairness and fidelity to the laws as they
were understood. They do not appear
to have been swerved by their political
affiliations. or intentionally to have de-
parted from the obligations Of strict in
tegrity. And the votes that were re-
ceived BY them were legally received. ~
they were given 10y the qualified and legal
voters ~ their precincts: and there is
no reason for believing that votes Were
received from any but legal voters. II is
rare to find record Of elections more
orderly. or regularly conducted. or In
which the requirements of the laws were
carefully observed than by these officers;
and throughout. the conduct Of the cleo
ton judges and clerks are creditable 10
the State that has 50 much in her history
to deserve and secure general commenda-
ion. And where every other proceeding
has been deserving Of approval. ii is a
source Of mingled surprise and regret that
the several boards of county canvassers
or commissioners We're not actuated by
the same incinations.
"They were not. Their cOlncident con-
duct exhibits the probability that con-
federation existed between a controlling
number Of their members to seize upon
trivial and immaterisl defects to reject
the votes of precincts favorable TO the
contestant wherever that could by any
possibility be done Their object seems
to have been wholly political. TO deprive
the successful candidate for Congress Of
the Office to which ne hal been elected by
the votes Of the people Of his district.
Aversion to his politics as n Third party,
or Peoples candidate. formed no excuse
or palllatlon for this misconduct. The
people are supreme. and whomsoeyer they
choose 10 select az their representative.
they are entitled 10 be represented by
that person. And no class of public Of
hcers can lawfully disregard their will.
1T has clearly been done In this In
stance by these boardS ol county COM
missioners And the wrong they have
done can only be rectified by depriving
James +. Epes Of the seat he has as
member Of the House Of Representatives,.
and In his place seating the contestant
j. Thomas Goode, who has been proved
entitled TO that seat"
CASE NOT ACTED on.
The case was not acted on by the House
The report of the Elections Com
mlttee being in favor Of the sitting mem
her and having been made so late In the
session It was foregone conclusion that
the case would not be called up.
The House twice refused to even con
slider the North Carolina case OF Will
llams W. Settle. The contestant and con-
testee in the latter case were allowed
extra expense-money. each getting $500,
or 2.JtO more than the usual amount.
CnNCnESSIGNt ELECTION.