Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1895-04-12
COURT OF APPEALS.

The Court OF Appeals yesterday, as
stated in the GAZETTE of that date,
handed down an opinion, written by
Judge Keith, president of the court, in
which it holds that the Walton election
law is constitutional.
The case in point is that of Pearson
ct ais. VS.. Board of Supervisors of Bruins
wick county ct ais. The plaintiffs al
lege that the Walton election law, un-
der which the election last fall was
held, is unconstitutional and that the
expenses thereof cannot lawfully De
paid out of the general levy. They pc
titioued the Circuit Court of Brunswick
to enjoin the Board of Supervisors from
paving the expenses. The Circuit Court
denied the injunction asked for and the
petitioners brought their case to the
Court of Appeals. The appeal was de-
MED, but Judge Keith says that as an
election is approaching and as there Is
uncertainty as to the Walton law, he
thinks it we'll for the court to dispose of
the matter without delay.
The court first lays down these gen.
eral rules:
1. That the right of suffrage is de-
rived from the constitution of the State
and to it we look for the qualification
of voters and the limitations and re-
strictions upon the right of voting. ).
2. The Legislature cannot prescribe
any qualification to those found in the
constitution.
8. That there is no educational quail
fcation prescribed by our constitution
and person otherwise qualified to vote,
no matter how ignorant he may be, IS
entitled to vote.
4. The sole function of the Legisla'
ture. with respect to the exercise of the
right of suffrage, is to provide the mode
in which those entitled to vote may do
so, and have their votes counted, and
to guard against improper, illegal, or
fraudulent voting.
5. To this end the Legislature may
adopt and enforce reasonable rules and
regulations to secure the one and pre-
vent the other.
6. But if under cover of law to
regulate voting a provision ID intro
duced into the law, which virtually es
tablishes test of the qualification of
the voter, additional to those prescribed
in the constitution, such provision OF
the law transcends the power of the
Legislature and is null and void.
The court then applies these propo-
sitions to the Walton law and at great
length goes into every detail, paying
special attention. however, to the vot-
ing booth and the special constable
Features. AS to the voting booth, the
court says: "These provisions seem to
be not only reasonable, but we'll adapt
ed to secure the end in view so far as
the voter is concerned who is able to
prepare his own ballot. With
the ignorant voter, however, the case
is different. 1t is obvious that one
who, either from physical or intellect
ual blindness, is unable to read, is
wholly incapable of voting by ballot
without assistance from some quarter.
The law recognizes this and provides
for it." Then follows a reference to
that provision of the law creating the
special constable. sit cannot be de-
nied,n continues the opinion, "that a
great trust is imposed in him (the spec
ial constable) and that wherever conf
dence is given, it is liable to be abused.
We do not think, however, that all the
elaborate provisions of the act are but
artful expedients contrived for the pur-
pose of deluding, entrapping and de-
frsuding the ignorant voters of the
Commonw ealth"-as charged by the
petitioners.
Going more infinitely into the duty
of the constable, the court says that in
section Is of the statute "may'' means
''shall," and that it is the bounden duty
Of the special constable to render to
him who is blind or unable by defect
i've education to read every assistance
asked for and required by the elector
to aid him in preparing his ballot.
In. conclusion the court says: sit
cannot be doubted that it was the pur-
pose of the legislature to frame law
which would promote fair elections. 1t
NAV be that experience may develop
unexpected defects in the agencies en-
ployed which will call for legislative
correction. If such is the case the
remedy will no doubt in due time be
applied.
of all honor and power. Their will is
expressed by elections by ballot. 1t is
for them to see to it that the agencies
employed to collect their will are kept
free from all faint of fraud and corrup-
ton and as far as may be from any sus
picion of it. 1t is idle to hope for
honest officials and honest government
as the result of dishonest elections. Il
The Legislature has done we'll, there
fore, to shelter and protect the voter,
and especially the ignorant voter, from
every influence inimical to the free ex-
ercise of the trust which the State has
reposed in him."
The question of alternating names on
the ballots was not dealt with.
Horsley VS.. Miller. Appeal refused
to decree of Circuit Court of Washing
ton county.
Walton VS.. Walton, trustee. Appeal
refused.
Virginia and Marine Insurance Com
pany We. Greenwood. Writ of error re-
fused.
Lynchburg National Bank vs.. Scott
Bros. Writ of error awarded to judy
ment of the Circuit Court of Washing
ton county.
Ellinger vs.. Bowdoin, fish commits
sioner. Mandamus refused.
Planters National Bank of Richmond
VS.. Haxall's executor. Appeal allowed
to decree of Chancery Court of City of
| Richmond.
| Ford VS.. Ford. Passed.
Armstrong VS.. R. & R; R. Co. Dis