Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-03-16
SATURDAY. :. MARCH 16, 1895
Tho Times Comedies That the DIS
patch Is Right ms TO the Attorney
Generals Opinion.

In the following leading editorial from
The Times OF yesterday the Times WITH
draws its often-made assertion that 'he
Dispatch had misrepresented the purport
OF the opinion Of Acknowledgement Scott
with respect TO the arrangement of can
ridates' names on the tickets used at
the election OF last November.
After a correspondence with the Attor-
ney-General the Times Is compelled 10
say that the Dispatch understood him.
and the Times did not. II follows tnere-
fore. that the members OF the electoral
boards who alternated the names on
the ballots were acting strictly withih
the law as the law is understood by the
Acknowledgement Of the State. II fol-
lows, also. that the Times owes these
gentlemen and all others concerned In the
alienation of names an humble apology
for consigning them to 'undying IN
fanny" Here is the Tfmes's editorial:
THD EY-GENERALis oPIN-
Jon ON ALTERNATING BALLOIS.-
The Dispatch suggested Thursday that
we ask the Attorney-General II ne
thought the county electoral boards had
a right TO alternate the names OF can
dl6ates on a number OF ballots a. each
precinct. The Times accordingly ad-
dressed him the following letter:
RICHMOND. VA, March II. 1879
Hon. Il. Taylor Scott. Attorney-Generai
OF Virginia:
Dear Sir.-In order TO settle what opin-
ION YOU have given upon the question OF
the legal right OF the county boards OF
election to alternate the names OF candl-
dates on ballots-that is. to print the
came names in different succession upon
Different ballots, under the walton law
The Times respectfully asks you TO be
good enough 10 state what your opinion
e. on this question, in order that we may
publish the same for the information of
She public Very respectfully.
THE TIMES COMPANY.
To which it received the following
Answer:
RICHMOND. VA. March Il, 1895
To the Editors OF the Richmond Times;
Centlernen.--Your note OF to-day Is be
fore me. In which you ask my opinion
whether or not electoral boards, under
The Walton law, have the right 10 alter
nate the names of the candidates upon
The ballot-that is. to print the names
of the candidates in different order or
succession.
The law does not prescribe the order
or succession in which the names OF
candidates shall he placed upon the bal
lot, but leaves this 10 the judgment and
discretion Of the board. If the order or
srecession of the names of candidates
varied upon the ballots prepared by
electoral boards. in my opinion. the ballot
"a legal. Very respectfully yours.
K. TAYLOR SCOTT.
Acknowledgement of Virginia.
The Attorney Generals opinion is not
Instinct on the question 10 which we
wished a specific reply. but we think we
Know what his meaning Is. He means
that the electoral boards of the counties
have a discretion to print number of
pieces of paper for each precinct ana
10 have the names OF the candidates IN
one order or succession upon one or the
,,,ecas and in another order OF succession
,,,,on another of the pieces. All those bal
lots. in the opinion Of the Attorney-Gene-
raj. constitute In fact but one paiiot
We believe, then, that the Attorney
General "a OF opinion that what was done
In our last election ia sanctioned by the
Ia SO THAT THE DISPATCH HIS
yrNDf,RSrOOD HIM. AND WE HAVE
We think, however, that we owe II 70
ourselves TO reprint here the puphsheu
oninions of the Attorney-Generai' upon
which We made UP our opinion OK HE
views.
,Ie,e follow the opinion Of the Attorney
General OF October Is. 1884, addressed &c
<,ecretary-of-the-Co Commonwealth Lawiess
ana the opinion of the Attorney-Genera
az February 4. 1926. addressed to X. Ii
apenccr. or buckingham. both OF whici
the Dispatch has heretofore published
From the Spencer opinion the Ilme'
FATHERS that there can only be "on'
ballot" for each county-and that I'M
q xnaKpd several Dal
lots, where there ought TO be out one
And then the Times adds:
The Acknowledgement may be rant u
h,s construction OF the law, thougn W
40 no. think he Is, for we are utte'i'
,,n.nie 20 understand how three or NOR
haIiots-each Of which differs from III
nthers-can constitute one ballot 80.
uowever while we do not agree VII
eha Attorney-C;enerais construction @
sha law. our whole contention has pee
that n was a most discreditabie ,rch
and we are Just as much or that opinloi
even ~ IL be lawful as We would be II
vware unlawful
Ass,,nIno that the Attorney-Generaf
,,,i,,oo OF the Walton law is correct
NE have the melancholy spectacle OF IN
c,ate itself solemnly providing to deceiv
her own voters. The Walton law
worse than we had supposed
putiers lines are appropriate to tn
Illness position in this matter
"He that complies against his VIII
Is OF his own opinion still
The only further comment that W
care 10 make on the subject Is that tn
Attorney Generals construction OF tn
law is sustained by legal talent OF grea
en,inence In this State-gentlemen who's
names are as household words to GU
people. and who have given the subjec