The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-03-13
ANOTHER EXPOSURE fOk HE DID
PATCH.

PATCH.
In an article yesterday. discussing TIC
contested election cases from virginia
that will come before the fllty-l""i''
Congress, the Dispatch says:
All that these contestants have 10 20
ON liz the alienation of candidates Hdi'o9
on the ticket used at the elecuoh' nm
on this point they depend very much uPo"
the voluntary testimony OF KICKING Dei'-
ocrats. Thorp hasn't been abe 10 MANI
any headway against Mckehhey' anu
in the Tenth district, wherever there mas
been any recount of ballots. this has been
IN the advantage of Tucker. II has Deeh
clearly proved that the election onlcers
did their duty fairly and squareiy' III
deed. that many OF them were so anxious
TO be non partisan that they leaned 10
Yost's side
Yes. we shall find that Thorp Nost'
Cornett and Hoge Will nave 10 aDah-
don all their claims as to cheating at the
polls. and will rest their cases on the
alleged unlawfulness of the alienation
system. -,
ON this point our members are well
fortified Not only did Attorney General
Scott give 1t as his opinion that the order
and arrangement of the names on me
ballot were left TO the judgment and dis
OF the very best lawyers in tirs CSdn-
monweaIth who have likewise studied the
question. have arrived at the conclusion
that alienation was allowable ana
proper.
one would have supposed that the les
son the Dispatch got when 1t tried 10
saddle the responsibility for this dis
graceful trick Of alienation upon the
Attorney General and the Secretary OF
the Commonwealth would effectually de-
ter IL from ever again saying that either
of them was in any way responsible for
It. But here we have it again saying
that the Attorney-General gave an opin-
ion that it was lawful TO do it. 1t does
not say 1t I'm terms. however. yet 1t says
what IL intends ana expects will be UNDER
stood to mean that.
Here was the real opinion OF the At
torney-General: The law requires can
didates for Congress to send their names
TO the Secretary of the Commonwealth,
who is to send them TO the electoral
boards of the counties TO be placed on the
ballots which those boards are TO pre-
pare and print. The secretary of the
Hanover county electoral board wrote to
the Secretary of the Commonwealth and
asked him If he was required TO print
the names on the ballots In the order in
which the Secretary of the Common
wealth sent them to him. In other
words. the Secretary of the Common
wealth sent them TO him thus Jones.
Smith. Brown. lie wanted 10 know if
he might not print them, Brown. Smith,
Jones. This inquiry had reference to
the order in which they should appear
upon ONE ballot only. The Secretary OF
the Commonwealth referred this letter
TO the Attorney-General, who, answering
the question that was asked. and that
only. replied that the law did not re-
quire the electoral board to print the
names on THE ballot in the order in
which they were received, but permitted
il TO print them on THE ballot in any
order that suited the board. He said
nothing whatever about more than one
ballot. and afterwards gave an express
and explicit opinion that the law allowed
the electoral boards TO print one ballot
only. This is the case. so far as the
Attorney-General is concerned.
Bnt what was actually done? Under
some inspiration, that operated all over
the State at the same moment, the coun-
~ electoral boards that were willing to
make themselves parties TO the contem-
plated trick, printed number OF ballots
for each voting precinct. Smith. Jones.
Brown and Thompson were to be voted
for at a precinct. They printed one bal
lot reading Smith. Jones, Brown. Thomp-
son, another reading Thompson. Jones.
Brown. Smith; another reading Jones.
Thompson. Smith. Brown: and another
reading Brown. Smith, Thompson, Jones.
The plain purpose OF this was TO pre-
vent an illiterdte voter from voting for
the man Of his choice by having learned
the place Of his name OH the ballot.
Now the Acknowledgement gave no
opinion that anything OF this sort was
lawful and he was expressly of opinion
that II was not lawful. because he has
given an opinion that the electoral boards
have authority to print but one ballot
for each precinct and all this has been
heretofors mace perfectly plain 10 the
Dispatch. Why. then. should II now repeat
It's former erroneous statement that un.
der the opinion Of the Attorney General
y xss lawful for the electoral boards