The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-04-12

In the same note Il Is pointed OUT tna'
the number of candidates mign, Ve IL
tenticnally multiplied. with q Vlc view ~ ~
barrassing and hindering the poinns y.
the vote by swelling the lust OF ~
names OF candidates TO ouch propot' -vl l.
as TO make the law disfranchise Inc poo
pie"
II we were permitted to indulge IN
conjecture 10 would be easy 10 conJure
VI a hypothetical state OF facts wh'cn
would embaTrasS--lifoced. preyent-tnc q,
ecution OF any and AL laws. IL WOuld
seem, however. that in this case the oh
iections I'c inconsistent with each other.
In the same breath II ~ asserted thar
tne law limits the elig bilty to ONCE
and that the rights OF the citizen are In
danger OF being smothered by the swarm
Of candidates. IL can hardly be saia tndt
the peril from either direction Is so imml-
rent as to require us 20 pronounce ,ne
tIonal The law places no limit upon the
Lumber Of booths that may pc snppn a.
while the power OF the county courts
10 multiply voting precincts Is fully com
mensurate 10 the necessities OF the peo-
nie and this court cannot, as PROPOSE
fiop of law decide that the time ailoWeu
bv he statute Is inadequate. A limit was
obviously necessary, and the period Is,
We nresi,rne. arrived at as a result OF
CAREFUL estimate based upon experience
in this or perhaps In other states Where
similar legislation has been INTRODUCED;
s'he time given was doubtless dccmeu
snIff1cient to obyiate the necessity for IN
due haste upon the one hand and to
prevent the resort TO merely obstructive
methods Of delay upon the other.
The questions of real interest are tnose
with respect 10 the powers ana dutles
OF the special constable. and as 10 That
feature Of the law which Is supposed 10
invade the secrecy OF the ballot 10 them
we have given our best consideration,
and our views have been presented IN
what we have already SAID. IL IS not
with courts a question OF the adaptauOh
OF means to an end. With considerations
of policy and expediency courts have no
concern Whether or not the rules ana
regulations, the checks and safeguards
with which the Legislature mas seen NJ
TO surround the exercise OF the rleht OF
suffrage IN order TO secure full. ire,
and untramme'ed expression of the w,ll
OF the voter are the best that cOulq De
devised, Is not for US TO determine Such
arguments must be addressed 10 the law
making power. With us 1t is wholly
question OF legislative power, ana not
one OF legislative discretion. by TINS
standard II Is impossible Tor US 10 say
that the act in question IS unconsulu-
tlonal 1t cannot be doubted that 1t was
the purpose Of the Legislature TO frame
a law which would promote fair cleo
tions. IL may be that experience may
develop unexpected defects in the agen-
cies empioyed which will call for legisla-
tive correction. If such is the case, the
remedy will, no doubt, I'm due time he
applied.
WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
The people are with us the source Of
all honor and power. Their VIII IS ~
pressed by elections by b illot. 1t Is for
them to see 10 IL that the agencies ehl-
ployed TO collect their will are kept Zee
from all faint Of fraud ana coIrup,.on'
and as far os may be, from the sus-
picion of 10. II Is idle 10 hope Tor honest
officials and homes. government as the
result IF dishonest elections. II wOull DC
l.f-f no
forth good fruit" If fraud is permitted
at elections, or II the laws under when
elections are held do not make IT'S per-
petration 10th difficult and dangerous;
honest men viii oe excluded IRON an
uarticipauOn in affairs, while those VINO
have by corrupt practices come into power
will not be slow amply to indemnify
themselves Dy peculation for all that their
success may have cost. me Leslsla'uIe,
therefore. has done well TO Snelter anu
protect the voter, and especially the igno,
rant voter from every influence inimlcal
to the free exercise of the trust Wn'cn
be Permitted to indulge the hope that II
viii in the light Of experience. supply
whatever may be lacking in the existing
laws to the accomplishment or that re-
suit 49,. .
n however. we had come to different
conclusion as TO the constitutional ques-
lions involved in the record, when ac-
companies the petition In this case, we
should sun ne OtllBtu " itiuSN '-.~ -
peal asked for. as the plaintiffs had
plain and adequate remedy at law without
resortng 10 bill in chancery under sec
ton S3G of the Code of Virginia.
For the foregoing reasons we deny
the appeal asked for by the petitioners
Other proceedings were ar follows
Hershey against Miller. From the Cir
cult Court Of Washington county. Appeal
refused.
Walton against Walton. trustee. and
ais. From the Circuit Court Of Shenan-
doah. Appeal refused. for reasons stated
in the opinion Of the judge OF the Circuit
Court filed with and made part OF the
record.
Virginia Fire and Marine Insurance Com
pany against Greenwood. From the CIR
cult Court Of the city Of Danvlle. APP
peal refused for errors stated in the opin-
ion of the Judge Of the Circuit Court
fled with and made part Of the record.
Lynchburg National Bank against Scott
Brothers & Co.. Writ OF error awarded
TO Judgment of the Circuit Court Of
Washington county. Bond In penalty OF
500.
Elinger against Bowdoin. Fish Com
missioner. Mandamus refused.
Planters National Bank Of Richmond
against Haxalrs Executor and ais. APP
peal allowed 10 decree Of the Chanccry
Court OF the city Of Richmond, hut not to
cperate as a supersedeas Bond In pen-
atty OF 800.
Ford against Forc. Passed.
Armstrong against Richmond and Din
Vile Railroad Company. Dismissed for
failure TO print.
Rcale's Administrator against GOriOn's
Administrators Further argued by Major
r. T. Scott for appellant and Epp1 Hun
ton. Jr.. for appellee. and submitted.
Clendening against Conrad and ais Ar
gucd by same counsel as I'm last case,
The next case 10 be heard Is Clark
against Oliver.