The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-02-15
FRIDAY FEBRUARY IS. 1895.
THE DIsPATCH's GLASTONBURY
QUESTIONS.

QUESTIONS.
When two parties are arguing an issue
and one mterjects question, the answer
10 which can have no possible bearing
upon the Issue being discussed. the quos-
ton may. without the smallest diaco"'-
tesy. be pronounced irrelevant, perhaps
childish. It is intended thereby to say
that there is neither rhyme nor reason u
Il. and that is all. The Times IS entirely
warranted. therefore. in saying that the
questions Put to 1t by tho Dispatch yes
terday are, at least, certainly irrelevant
An answer to them could have no poSsi-
BILE bearing upon the matter In issue ne
tween them. Let us state that issue ex-
actly as Ii is.
The Times said that the alternating OF
names on a number Of ballots at the same
precinct in many parts of the state was
a discreditablc trick. The Dispatch TOOK
the other side Of this proposition ana
averred that under the circumstances II
was right 1t fortified itself In its position
by saying that the electoral board OIL
Hanover asked the Secretary OF the COM
monwealth If II could do it; that the
Secretary Of the Commonwealth asked }he
Attorney General if it couid be done tha'
the Attorney-Gencral wrote the Secreta-
nv of the Commonwealth that II was Jaw
full to do it, and that the Secretary oi
the commonwealth sent circular out
20 all the electoral boards In the state
-.intended for the guidance of the clec'o-
raj boards" which lad Incorporated IN 1t
,bis opinion of the AttOrney-General taat
k.>ss alternating of names on many TICK
cts at one precrict vas lawful. Al 'h's
point IN the trial OF the issue whethcr
the alterations were a d.screditable tIlch'
The Times asked 20 see the circular "i
the Secretary of the Commonwealth anu
the opinion of thc Attorney-GeneIai-
Il craved oyer. The Dispatch produced
them. and IL turned out That the At'ol-
ney-General had never given any suCh
opinion at all. but. on the contrary was
of orinion that there could be only one
ballot for each precinct. and mat the
.sa,retarv of the Comm onwealth had
never hinted or suggested TO the eIec-
toral boards that they might print SEW
oral ballots for eGch precinct, changing
the names on each ballot to places diner
snt from what they occupied on others'
The Dispatch was, therefore convicted
nj renresenting to the people of Virginia
ahat the Secretary of the Commonwealth
and the Attorney General had been par
aies to the act which we think dlscredi-
table trick, when neither one had had any
sort of part or lot in it, and the Attor-
y.General was of opinion that the thing
was wholly contrary to law.
The case being then freed OF this rub
blish which the Dispatch had, so dis
astrous to itself, lugged into II, the only
ahiEg in order was to take up again the
original question. whether the act ITSELF
was a discreditable trick, and the Dis
patch's next move in the discussion Of
that question was to ask The Times yes
aerday the following:
Surprising that before the election Harry
Tucker knew of and approved the pro-
posed alienation; supposing mat since
the election he had spoken boldly and un-
hesitatingiy in defence of alienation;
supposing that this question Were d vital
question in his contest, and he should
still he willing TO hold his seat in Con-
gress. would The Times class him as a
Beneficiary of fraud, and include him
among those "manipulators' who are
condemned TO 'undying infamy'? And
under such circumstances would The
Times think that Tucker could honestly
mold his seat?
II follows this with two or three more
questions. but they are mere variations
OF the same tune. 1t is these questions
which The Times calls Irrelevant indeed
childish. Let us see whether they are or
not.
Now. suppose Harry Tucker did know
and approve Of the proposed alienation.
If IL be-as we say IL is-a discreditable
trick. would that make 1t the less so?
And suppose that since the election he
mas spoken boldly and unhesitatingly in
defence of IT, would that alter the sub
stance OF the case? Why then put such
questions 10 The Times? The Dispatch
IS evidently seeking shelter under Mr.
fuckers ample robes. which we trust will
afford II no cover. But the point which
the Dispatch really aims at is contained
sn the next question. and It is intended
by II 10 ask as II we think Tucker should
be upseated II IL be proved that he knew
before the election that the alienation
was intended and approved of it. Now
why should we De asked such question
as this? But since we have been asked
what Is really a legal question, we shall
give 10 the Dispatch our view Of the case
as a matter OF law.
The Dispatch must know that simple
knowledge by Mr.. Tucker of the proposed
act and approval OF II by him cannot in
any way affect his right 10 his seat. A
may know that intends to blow up the
Capitol. and hs may rejoice In his heart
that b y going TO DO It. ana yet II A
takes no part In the act. he is In no
Eey compromised by It. Mr.. Tucker