Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-04-18

The Times continues TO argue tna''
hound by a certain rule OF law, Messrs.
Keith. Rely. cardwell, Buchanan ana
Harrison, as Judges. gave expression 70
an opinion which they personally anu
unofiicially knew was at variance win
the facts.
In the Brunswick case the Supreme
Court OF Appeals said. IN speaking OF inc
Walton law. that at cannot be doubted
that II was the purpose OF the Legisia-
ture to frame law which would pro-
mote fair elections" And the court re-
pudated the idea advanced by the peu-
tioners that the elaborate provisions o'
the law were artfully contriVed eA-
pedients to entrap the ignorant voters
etc.
But the Times insists that the court
was bound. as q court. to say ths'
could not impute 10 a coordinate orahen
of the government an intention 70 perpe-
trate a fraud. OF course, Il was bound
ns a court. to give that department 'he
benefit OF every presumption" "NeyerIhe-
less" the Times continues. common
sense-men know that the presumption IN
this case is a violent one. and thai the
real purpose intended 10 be aeeompllsheu
10y the law was the Acknowledgement OF
the il!iterate negroes or the counting Vi
their ballots in Just the opposite way
from which they wished them counted.
And further on the Times declares It's
belief that "the court knows the actual
state OF the case as well as the rest OF
the people OF Virginia"
Outside of the Times office and Few
other circles the rest Of the world
knows no such thing as the Times al
Ieges. There is absolutely no proof to
sustain the charges of the Ti@es.
Judge Cardwell was a member (and
Speaker of the House OF Delegates at the
session when the Walton law was passed
and he was the most influential supporter
that the bill had in that body. Now 70
suppose him capable Of occupying the
position which the Times ascribes 10 the
members OF the court Is to suppose MN
guilty OF crime. He was a sworn SER
want OF the Commonwealth when he used
his voice and vote in favor Of the passage
Of the Walton bill, and he is sworn
officer of the Commonwealth now. ana ne
could not play the dual role or saying
a thing officially and disbelieying 1t I'M
officially without abandonment or those
high principles which have given him,
in an extraordinary degree. the conf
dence and respect Of the people.
There is not a judge on our supreme
Bench who has not had equally as good
opportunities as the Times TO judge OF the
motives Of the men who passed the Wal
ton law. II they had come TO the same
conclusion that the Times has they could
not have accepted office at the hands Of
such legislators. They would have
Stunned contact with such polluting crea-
lures. So we have every right to believe.
as we DO believe, that when our Supreme
Court OF Appeals said that 'it cannot be
doubted that it was the purpose OF the
Legislature to frame a law which would
promote fair elections" it expressed an
official opinion which is identical with the
individual opinion of its members.
ms expression Vi inc coui' N"SSh
please the Times very much, but 1t viii
be very helpful to Mckinney, Tucker.
Otey. and Swanson in their contests.
Whenever a Republican member quotes
the Richmond Times as saying that the
Virginia law was conceived in fraud"
Democratic member can rise and or
set the Times's view by quoting the
language Of our highest court-to wit.
1T cannot be doubted that II was the
purpose of the Legislature to frame a
law which would promote fair elections"
and that il cannot think that all OF the
elaborate provisions Of the act in question
are hut artful expedients cOntrved for the
purpose OF deluding, entrapping, and de-
frauding the ignorant voters Of this Com
rnouWealth'