Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-04-12

ia wbat we have already said. IL IL not
with courts a question ~ the anap,s s,a.
OF means to an END; W.. Win co,,r,s nave no
concern. Whether or not the rulrs anu
reg,ilations, the checks and saiesuaraas,
with which the LEGISLATURE i hns r 1sSn o.
suffrage IN order to secure iui,, Iii
and untrammeled expression OF .ny W. W.
OF the voter are the best Una, vo"'s e,,ct
devised. is not for us 10 determine. Su.n
arguments must he addressed 10 me a"
making power. with us " ~ Wno.iy a
question OF legislative power. anu 10, III
OF legislative discretion. 10y s W., that The
ard IL Is impossible for US 20 say ma vi
arf in question Is uncorsttutiohaL ~
cannot be doubted that II was 'ne pun ~
~ the LEGISLATURE 10 frame "a" VII, ~.
would promote fair elections. III may De
,rat oyperience may develop uneNpeciei
dSfects in the agencies employed "nie,h
viii call for legislative correction. ~ suJ IN
Is the case, the remedy VIII "o ""n"' ~
due time be applied ..,..,
ELECTIONS SHOULDBE HONEST.
rh. neonIe are with us the source OF al
honor and power. Their VIII IS eNprsssseu
Nv elections by ballot. IL IL for mem
to see to Il that the as1nGIe s s T,p rom
All faint of fraud and corruption; anu;
as far as may be, from the susplcgd9ut -,
II IN is IDLE to hope for honest oincHtis
and honost government as the result OF
dishonest elections. IL would be az WI
20 o,nec, an "cVil tree to hring ioftn
good fruit" II fraud Is permitted az
elections. or II the laws unHer VIII, mn
ciections are held do not make its per
netration both difficult and DANGEROUS;
honest men will be excluded rom an
PARTICIPATION In affairs, while those wno
have hy. corrupt orac,Icgir,, ~ Ir5lomni.
~ themselves by peculation Tor az that
their success may have cost. ne i ,tii,s,
Iaturc. therefore. has done wen 70 ni,e, ~
and protect the voter. and especillIy me
IGNORANT voter. from. every lnllurhce mn
micahle 10 the free exercise 81 tne It's
which the state has reposed IN MN,
hone that II will In the Hght OF ~
nerience. supply whatever may ne lacH-
Ing in the existing laws to the accom-
plishment Of that result 1,c,oro,,
II however we had come to diHereht
conclueion as to the constitutional ques-
lions involved in the record Whlch hc-
companles the petition in this case ""
hal asked for. as the plaintiffs had a
njain and adequate remedy at law, wnh-
out resoriing to bill in chaacery. under
section SG5 of the Code OF virginia a.
Nor tho foregoing reasons We deny the
anpeal asked for by the petitioners.
Other supreme Court Cases.
Tho following we're the other cases
disposed of or heard:
Uorsley vs. Miller. Appeal refused 10
decree Of Circuit Court of Washington
county. , -.
Walton VS.. Walton. trustee. Appear re-
fused for reasons stated in the opinion
of the Judge of the Circuit Court OF
shenandoah county. filed with and made
a part of the record.
Virginia Fire and Marine Insurance
Company VS.. Greenwood. Writ OF error
refused for reasons stated in the opinion
az the Judge. OF the Circuit Court.
Lynchburg National Bank W. scott
Rrothers. Writ Of error awarded 10 lluE-
r,ent Of the Circuit Court Of Washington
county.
EHincer vs.. Brown, Fish Commissioner.
Mandamus.
Planters National Bank OF Richmond
VS.. Uaxalrs executor. Appeal allowed 10
decree of Chancery Court Of city OF Klch-
mOnd.
Ford ys. Ford. Passed.
Armstrong vs. Richmand and Danvlile
Railroad Company. Dismissed
Beale's administrator vs.. Gordon ana
others. Further argued by Major X ray
lor Scott for appellant and Eppa hunton'
Jr.. Esq. for appellee and submitted.
Clendening vs.. Conrad and others.
Argued by r. Taylor Scott, Esq. for APP
reliant. and Eppa Hunion. Jr, Esq, Tor
qupcllpp