The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-04-07

the manner I'm which they paid out money
for them, that they could not In many
cases tell after the vote was polled when
candidate secured IT,
At least one OF the candidates told me
that he found out that men who got
his money voted against him. and he cited
one case In which he paid a man $3.50
as a worker, before and on the day OF
| election. who for small sum voted for
/ one of his opponents.
| Another case Is we'll authenticated
where a man received s. from one can
| ddate as a worker at the polls and was
bought TO vote for another candidate
| for 81.
Yet another case Is vouched for by a
| respectable eye witness where a voter
| started TO the polls to vote for one can
! didate for treasurer and was stopped
when near the polls and induced for
the Price OF 81 to change his vote. The
witness saw the money pass and saw the
| candidate take the voter by the arm and
did not let him go until he had marched
TO the polls and voted his ballot
THE FAEMEns TOO.
Al some OF the country precincts
where the farming element predominated
| the purchase of votes was not 30 fire.
/ quent, but even those precincts were not
| exempt Well-to-do-looking men I'm a
| number or instances, when asked to vote
| said that they could not afford TO lose
| their time T. come TO the polls to vote
without compensation. and I'm othfr ways
minated that they wanted money for
| their votes 1t is needless to say that
they cast their votes and went home
richer than when they came to the polls.
a worker al one Of the outlying pre-
| cincts raid he spent $3.50 in buying votes
| at So and $3.50 apiece, as long as his
money held out and that if he had been
furnished more he could have secured
more. lie said the workers of the OPP
posing candidate paid as high as s. ior
some votes at trat precinct.
At another precinct a son OF one OF
the candidates said he paid as high as
| eight dollars for votes and men who had
votes to cell came TO him and told him
that they had been offered as much as
ten dollars by the opposition. Said he;
THE pace came too hot for me, and j
had to pull out
The same party said that his opposing
workers told him they had paid high
as $3.50 Tor votes at that precinct
At TIL same precinct the barter for
votes was especially bold. and I'm one
or more cases men were offered money
for their votes while I'm the act of voting
One man, whose name was given. was
offered s. at the window for his vote.
and In order 10 increase the inducement
he was told that he would be given
s. for his fathers vote also. He refused
both offers
OF 4 DIFFTRENT NATURE.
Along with the purchase Of votes went
frauds OF another kind. hand in hand.
such as false transfers, repeating and vot-
ing In the county by men who lived I'm
the city.
saw a number of persons who testi-
fed to such irregularities.
The gTavest charge made was at Bar
| ton Heights precinct. where IL is al
| legged by a man who was a witness to
| the count, that votes were taken off
| the file and substituted for others and
| that in the count they were called for
| the wrong candidate.
If any person be doubtful Of this de-
plorabe condition of affairs In Henrico
on March the 18th he can find an abun-
| dance of evidence on even the most
casual investigation. | had no trouble In
securing a mass Of evidence showing the
| open use of money and in some instances
| fraudulent voting. | interviewed voters
| and precinct workers impartially. and
! the testimony easily obtainable showed
numerous cases Of bribery. which II
separately published would ill volume.
CUTTING EVIDENCE.
| In cases where a party stated that
| he saw another party receive or pay out
money for vote. l sought out the party
! in question, If possible, and in most
| cases the report was confirmed by the
| party concerned. In fact, there were very
| few denials of the charges. and then
| 1t was for other reasons than because
| they were not true.
For instance one man who .zas reported
TO have used money in purchasing votes
| denied il, and protested also that he had
not received compensation for the work
ba 70,
| have done both by other persons.
The candidate in question said he paid
| him S25 10 work for him, and
voters told me that he paid them money
| for their votes.
In the search for evidence of the al
| legged use of money In the primary, /
| also came across evidence OF fraud in the
| casting, handling and counting Of the
lsvotes.
1t is not the purpose OF this article
TO make specific charges Of either the
| debauched use OF money or fraudulent
voting, but TO show the Generalization
that has grown up in Henrico because Of
tho departure from honest methods in
politics.
No doubt many Of the facts lightly
touched upon here will have complete
ventilation. If the Democratic committee
grant an examination of the CHARGES
made by the candidates. who have al
ready given notice of contest to their
opponents.
WILL TESTIFY.
Although the witnesses to these facts
do not care TO figure in print most OF
them expressed a willingness TO allow the
use OF their names If Necessary to sub
stantiate the facts as they stated them
for publication in The Times.
George Il. Anderson. who was defeated
for treasurer by W. II. Brauer, is not
satisfied with the contest. Anderson and
Brauer were opponents for the same
Office four years ago. Mr.. Anderson on
the Republican ticket and Mr.. Brauer
on the Democratic ticket. and Brauer
won.
Since that time Mr.. Anderson has anil
lated with the Democrats however, and
was recognized as such by the Demo-
cratic committee in the recent primary
Mr.. John 7. Lindsay. Jr., was also q
candidate, but in the contest II was
shown that the 'snews of war; were
used principally between the two first
named each alleging that the other used
ii first, and the most OF IT,
Mr.. Anderson yesterday served notice
Of contest on Messrs. Brauer and Lind
say. his opposing candidates. and also
on Captain J. n. O'Bannon, chairman
of the Democratic committee. Mr. An
derson is represented by Mr.. w. II. Bev-