Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-02-13
WEDNESDAY. ..... FEB. 13, 1895
The Tfmcs's Change of Front.

much indeed on the Walton law. as on
other subjects. When this law was passed
The Times claimed II as Times victory.
The Dispatch was never disposed 10 con-
cede this claim. well knowing tina, what
the Times fought for was the abolition OF
the electoral boards and the re-enact-
ment OF the old provisions of law giving
10 the Judges power 10 appoint election
officers. But the Times put forward its
claim for credit for the passage Of the
Walton law with so much vociferation
and iteration that it came TO be consid-
cred by many persons as the father of
the new law. True, 1t said that the law
was not all 1t had hoped for. nevcrthe-
the people were to be "congratulated' on
This first and most important step in
"election REFORM" Such was the Times's
position soon after the law was passed.
Now, let us see how the Times has
been treating its legislative child of late.
Has 1t been explaining it SO as 10 COM
mend IL TO public favor or has il been
banning II with denunciation? Let US
see Among the many utterances Of the
law into disrepute was the following.
which appeared IN the editorial columns
OF that paper during the last campaign.
ard which was instantly seized upon by
several anti-Democratic papers and placed
NJ the head Of their columns in black
letter. and there kept standing till cleo
Monday:
"a har Cai taf ba al
'ton law satisfies us. for it is just as far
"from satisfying US as a measure con-
"ceiyed in the interests Of fraud can be
from satisfying man bent on securing
pure electiOns.'
Conceived in the interest 81 fraud. this
law that the Times boosted Of as Times
victory.-this law upon which the Times
rcongra tulated" the people,
What greater change of front was ever
presented?
our campaign speakers during the
greater part Of the last canvass found
the above declaration Of the Timess
Haunting them in the face. II was an
embarrassing thing for them 10 meet.
The result was that the faith of many
Democratic voters was shaken. while the
that they had from the Times The Times
was a hndrance and a drag upon the
Democratic party all during the canvass.
and our victory in nine districts out Of
ten was not won by it's help, but despite
Its Interference. What wonder. then. that
the Times is not trusted with our party
secrets?
-
II wishes 10 See Tucker. Otey, and Me
kenney hold their seats IL they were
elected but If they were not
elected. then they ought to be unseated."
OF course. But nowhere in its editorial
Of more than column in length does the
Times concede the election of Tucker,
McKenney. and Otey. 1t treats their
election as q matter OF dubiety.
Indeed. SO far from conceding the cleo
ton Of Otey. Tucker. and Mckinney. the
Times insists upon 1t that the alienation
Of names "a vital point in all OF the con-
tested-election cases, and which Tucker,
Mckinney. and Otey defend was mas
terpiece OF trickery." Not content with
this assertion. the Times is now laboring
with might and main TO disprove the
Idea that our electoral boards acted con-
scientiously and In accordance with the
law as Interpreted by Attorney-General
Scott. &c. here we have the Times not
only falling TO say that 1t believes that
Tucker. Mckinney. and Otey were fairly
elected. but actually at work TO prove
that the contrary is the fact-!n other
words, to prove that our elections were
carried by masterpiece Of trickery.'
We must continue TO express our sur
prise that with It's CLOSE connection
with the State committee and It's news
collectors scattered throughout the State
the Times never heard of the opinion or
the Attorney General until II was brought
10 It's notice by the Dispatch. However,
we must say that our party chairmen
and our electoral boards throughout the
State-some four or five hundred men
knew about the opinion. If It was
secret, II was a secret in the hands OF
hundreds Of men.
The Times has now seen the circular
in full, and we should like TO know If it
purposes prosecuting the Secretary of the
Commonwealth for misfeasance in
once In preparing the circular and
sending II out. We guess not.
No unprejudiced man OF sound sense
will take the ground that MIR.
Lawless In any wise overstepped his duty
In conveying 10 the electoral boards. along
with copies Of the election-laws. opinions
OF the Acknowledgement as 10 several
mooted questions arising under those
M xpi eoa
had failed TO communicate these Inn
portant opinions OF the Attorney General
TO the electoral boards he would have
proved himself incapable OF understand
ing the plainest duties OF his office. Had
he adopted the course that the Times
suggests, the vote on the constitutional
amendment would have been involved In
dire confusion. Like the sensible man
that he is. Secretary Lawless printed in
circular-form the opinion OF the Attor-
ney-General that there must be separate
ballot-boxes for the ballots OF those per-
SONS voting on the constitutional
amendments. And In that very
same circular the Secretary printed
the further opinion OF the Attor-
ney-Ceneral that the matter OF the order
and arrangement of the names OF cam
didates on the official ballot Was left en-
tirely to the Judgment and discretion
Of the electoral boards.
Beneath the veil Of irony that 1t EN-
ploys II is easy TO see that the Times is
yexed that II Is not trusted with the
secrets OF the Democratic party We can
understand how annoying II must be to
the Times 10 have TO come 10 the Dis
patch for Information. but II must con-
cede that we have shown II an 0bliglnS