The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-02-26
WHAT SHOULD HONEST JOURNAL
DO IN SUCH A CAsEc

In commenting upon the report OF the
committee of the House Of Represents
tives in favor of Mr.. Eppes, in the con-
tested election case of Goode v Eppes'
the Dispatch says in its Sundays issue
"The victory of Mr.. Eppes is all the
more noticeable. because he not only had
To- contend against the combined forces
Of Republicanism and Popuiism. but
against editorial expressions from qpar-
>u,heSee -he might. have expected fhelp
instead of nurt." This. of course, refers
TO the articles which The Times has had
upon what was done to overcome the ma
jority that the voters gave Mr.. Goode
and convert IL into a majority for Mr..
Eppes. IT raises a very serious question
OF journalistic ethics. IT is equivalent to
the Dispatch saying that it was the duty
OF The Times TO refrain from saying
anything at all about this case, or else to
have said that Eppes should be given the
seat. We have the printed record of
the evidence that was taken in this
Ease, and we have studied it very care
Eully. and we propose TO lay before our
readers this morning the case exactly as
that record discloses it. in order that
they may judge whether The Times was
right TO make the remarks on it which
IL did make, or whether it should have
pursued d course of silence or of appro-
baton, which would have been. in our
opinion, a disgrace TO 1t.
According TO the certificates that were
made by the precinct judges, all Demo-
Gratis. who held the election of the votes
that they received and put into the bal
lot-boxes, Goode received IN the election
i'm the fan of 1892 1858 votes. and Eppes
received 1861 votes. giving Goode a ma
Democrats are some 6c00 in the minori-
dy. The law provides that on the sec
ond day after an electiongis held body
provided for by the law, for each county,
and called the commissioners of election,
shall meet and canvass the returns that
the precinct judges Of election have made.
and certify to the Secretary Of the Com
monwealth he number OF votes that the
judges OF election have certified to them
that each candidate received. Goode was
deprived of the majority which the pre-
cinct judges of election certified that he
received. by these county boards OF COM
mssioners Of election rejecting and re-
fusng to canvass and count ii sufficient
number OF precincts where Goode had a
majority TO change the majority in the
Eppes. The board OF county commits
sioners rejected and refused to count the
votes cast at thirty-two precincts. which
were nearly one-third of the precincts
in the district. in other words, they dis
franchised about one-third of the voters in
the district. Goode had a majority at
thirty OF these rejected precincts. and
Eppes had a majority al two of them
amounting TO 20. BY rejecting these
thirty-two precincts Goode lost 4199 votes
and Eppes lost 1887 votes. Precincts
were thrown out in each of the twelve
counties OF the district. except Pow
hatan.
Now II Is 10 be borne in mind that the
boards OF commission ers OF election met
in each county OF the district on the sec
ond day after the election. and we find
all OF them. except the board for Pow
hatan. doing exactly the same thing at
the same time. What was that thing?
II was 10 reject Goodies precincts. upon
prctexts that are too contemplate for a
serious and an honest man to consider
them for moment. when they really
had no authority TO reject any. We can
not. within the limits OF a newspaper
article. specify the grounds upon which
each precinct was thrown out. but we
will give the details for a few. and the
excuses for throwing out all the others
were just a. frivolous.
We have taken the following illustra-