Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-04-16
-, oc1,1cT- 4Ta EAST BROAD
APRIL Is, 1895.
..... .he Cnnrt Menpt.

IfnmindfEi OF JUS ldiiH't =" go
Meaning OF the Attorney-General IN TUG
natter Of alternating names, the liheS
-, comes forward to explain what Is
,.s ,,,e,y OF the recent opinion OF the su-
irene Cour, on the Walton law.
II doesn't agree at all with the DIS
.,..b that the court knocks sky-high
Tho theory which has prevailed WIN
sorne that the Walton law was cohceNeu
,, fraud and designed to cheat liIlterate
mon out of their votes" The Ilhes
,-,.op.ion Is that when the court said
,rst cit cannot be doubted that II was
the purpose Of the Legislature TO frame
, law which would promote fair eiec-
,;,,s " all that it meant was that the
court was bound TO presume that All u
,ae acts OF the Legislature are en-
ac,ei to carry out in good faith the
..,.,.e7s with which the Constitution
-,c.i,es H." And then the Times says
.-.t Ill is with good reason eve shoul0
fH-o q, know what this reason ist be-
loved that the walton law was INTENDED
o., be cheap means OF perpetrauns
e.,uds in the negro districts Che same
,.I stab at Southside and Tidewater VIZ
c.-i) and though each judge or
the Court of Appeals may be wen
satisfied OF this in his capacity OF ciu-
-r, vet when he came to act as
.,rt of Virginia's chief court he would
M, minute such an intention to the Le-
cislaure." &c. &c
Now. II this means anything at all IL
,s that we are not at liberty to regard
the opinion Of the court as the personal
and individual opinion OF each Of the
FIVE gentlemen who compose the court.
II as We suppose, this is the view of
tre Times Il is not ours. Far from II.
We sincerely believe that when the court
sad Ill cannot be doubted that 1t was
the purpose Of the Legislature TO frame
law which would promote fair cleo
tons" each man expressed his judicial
and personal opinion both.
We cannot believe that Judges Keith
Rely. Cardwell. Harrison. and Buchanan
would have accepted Office rendered by a
LEGISLATURE capable OF such crimes as
the Times has charged our last Legisla~
ture with.
No. sir: our belief is that our Supreme
Court OF Appeals in giving official eX-
preston TO their opinion on the Walton
law said what was in their hearts and
what they would Rave said had the &C.
casion demanded an expression of their
personal opinion. They might have writ
ten their opinion in the Brunswick case
without saying that lit cannot be doubt
cd that it was the purpose Of the Legis-
lature to frame a law which would pro-
mote fair elections; but they chose not
TO conceal their thoughts, and they ex-
pressed them in terms as concise, COM
prehensive. and conclusive as any parti-
san friend OF the law could have select
"a after cudgeling. his brain for year
And so we have the Supreme Court re-
iecting all the arguments and theories 10
the contrary-and there were plenty OF
them advanced in the papers OF the petit
uoners--and declaring most emphatically
tlat 1t cannot be doubted that IL was
the purpose Of the Legislature to frame
4 law which would promote fair cleo
tong: fact plainly. but powerfully
stated, Yes, and this view is reiterated
by the court where il rejects the claims
az the petitioners and declares that ii
cannot think that all OF the elaborate
provisions Of the act In question are but
artful expedients contraved for the pur-
pose OF deluding, entrapping, and de-
frauding the ignorant voters Of this
Commonwealth"
The Times is as far of the track in
constituting the Supreme Courts opinion
as il was in constituting the opinion OF
Attorney General Scott The Times had
10 be sent to the Attorney-General to
find out-what all the rest of the world
knew-that in that contention it was
wrong. and the Dispatch right. In like
manner, as the Attorney-General spoke
for himself, we should be glad QoE the
Times's comfort, not ours, for the mem
bers of the Supreme Court TO speak for
themselves and say whether they hold
any personal opinion different from their
official opinion as TO the honesty of the
nurpose of the Legislature which framed
and passed the Walton law. No matter
whether we get any such expression OF
not, OF this we feel sure-that when Tom
Reed and his miserable crew of Radicals
and South-haters come TO try the cases
OF Congressnen Mckinney, Swanson,
Otey, and Tucker 1t will not be the opin'
ion OF our highest and greatest court
that they will quote. but such express
sions OF the Times as were made in its
issue of Sunday last and as were made
by 1t during the last campaign in this
State.