The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-02-07
THE pIsPArCH DEFENDS IT.

THE DISPATCH DEFENDS IT.
In answer 10 our article OF Tuesday TIE
Dlspatch yesterday takes up the cudgels
I'm defence of the printing OF NUMBER OF
ballots at each precinct in many COIN
ties In the last election with The names OF
the candidates differently placed on eaeh
ballot. The Dispatc,' says that before the
election some one in public Office had
secured the opinion of Attorney-Gene
) X. Taylor Scott. and ascertained from
him that the order of arrangement OF
names on the official ballot was matter
entirely within the discretion OF the
board" This is the first time we over
heard OF this opinion OF the Attoiney-Geh-
eraI. and IT. would be interesting 10 sec 1t
and to learn who that some one i'll pubic
Office" is. We hope the Dispatch Will
print the opinion and give us the name
of the some one in public Office.
The Dispatch also says that this opin-
ion was printed In circular form and went
all over the State" 1t was not printed
I'm any newspaper. that We Know OF, ana
Il could not Ego all over the State" by
any means of locOmotiOn possessed by H.
self 1t must therefore, have been sent
'all over the State" VIII the Dispatch
please inform us by whom this opinion
was sent "all over the State"
But the Dispatch scorns TO rest It's &c
fence of this remarkable proceeding upon
any matters OF this sort. 1t takes up the
cudgels for the act itself. and this is Its
defence of it. 1t says: "Mr.Yost Mr.Thorp
and others had organized so.called lal-
lot schools with the express purpose of
ignoring the special constables and de-
feating the spirit of the Walton law and
the electoral boards. whose duty 1t was TO
have the official ballots ttickets) printed,
exercised the privilege that the law gave
them to alternate the names on the
tickets" The idea presented here Is that
the Walton law intended to force a man
who could not read to set the constable
10 prepare his ballot for him. and all that
the fair-minded jurists who compose the
county electoral boards intends to do by
their sleight- of hand ballots was to force
the illiterate voters TO obey the law lit
orally.
Now this is to us. an entirely new view
Of the law. We had supposed that the law
was perfectly Indifferent TO whether the
illierate voter made use of the consta-
bles' services or not. We had supposed
that the law intended TO allow the lint
crate voter the privilege OF going it
blind" If he chose. or of preparing his
81
that he might select We have supposed
that In providing the constable the law
intended to place itself in a position that
was above criticism. That 1t intended 10
say to the illiterate voter. you may pre-
pare your own ballot II you choose from
such aid and assistance as may be salts
factory 10 you, but II you can get none.
and are willing 10 put yourself into my
hands. ]. the law, will furnish an officer
that will render you the necessary as
sistance." This is the first time we have
ever heard II said that IT was the purpose
of the law TO compel the illiterate voter
TO resort 10 the single constable, and that
the illiterate voter who did not resort 10
the constable was but evading the law by
AN unworthy II not an illegal. su6terfuge
in attempting TO do his own voting and
that such independence should be sum
marily dealt with. II that be really its
purpose. the the design of those who
framed 1t was even blacker than We had
supposed, and the law fully justihes what
a gentleman OF very high official position
said Of it. that its capabilities for secur-
ing the end desired were far beyond the
general understanding OF IT.
or course. IL that is the design of the
law. and II the jurists who constitute our
county electoral boards were actuated
solely by q sincere desire 10 have the law
impartislly enforced. according to its let
eAs and spirit then we shall have TO think