Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-04-14
CAN COPY THE. BOOKS.
Action Of the County Committee as 10
the Alleged Election Frauds.
PROOF MUST CHANGE THE RESULT.
The Matter VIII ne Settled Next
Saturday st Noon-RepubItcans
Meet and Decide to support Inde-
pendent Candidates.

The Henrico County Democratic Com
mittee met at the courthouse at noon
yesterday and heard at length the claims
OF both sides in the contests for the nomi-
nations in the cases OF Treasurer. mem
Der Of the Board OF Supervisors. and Com
missioner OF the Revenue. The contestants
respectively are MesSrs. George T. Ander-
son. J. W. Taylor and c. +. Smith.
After having been in session four hours
the committee determined TO allow the
books OF the precincts designated in their
notices OF contest. such work 10 be done
under the supervision Of sub-commit-
tee from the county committee. and 10
give them until next Saturday at noon
In which 20 present their proofs. If such
proof OF fraud should not be sufficient
to change the result that result is TO
stand.
THE ANDERSON-BRAUER CASE.
The Anderson Brauer contest over the
nomination for County Treasurer was
first gone into by the committee. Captain
J. III. O'Bannon, chairman. presided, and
nearly all the members were present
Mr.. w. III. Brauer. the cOntestee. and his
counsel. Messrs. L. o. Wenienburg and
George u. Wise. were on hand, and Mr.
George j.. Anderson, the contestant, and
his attorney, Mr.. W. Ii. Beverdge soon
came into the courtroom. The notice OF
contest OF Mr.. Anderson. the substance or
which has already been printed in the
Dispatch, was read. il alleged frauds and
f,~Vo Ia ri Ia m q.rnEtnNfG
that there had been bartering for and pur-
chasing Of votes on the part of candi-
dates. The contestant did not claim 10
be free from the latter practice. but
thought IL was not well for the interest
OF the party for this sort OF thing 10 so
on.
Mr. Wendenburg submitted the de-
murrer OF Mr.. Brauer. the cOntestee. It,
in the first place, takes the ground that
the notice OF Mr.. Anderson was insult
cieut, because the plan of the committee
required that in making contest the
contestant should leave with the con-
tCstee a written demand for a recanvass
OF the returns or a recount OF the ballots
(or BOTH Of any or all OF the precincts
in the district in which he ran, specifying
therein such precinct or precincts, and the
irregularities, errors or frauds alleged.
Otherwise there could be no recdnvass
~ the returns or recount Of the ballots,
unless the committee should consider the
demand based on good grounds and
order the recount
The reply also states that the demand
~ the contestant for a new primary is
4 thing which could not be granted. be-
cause nowhere in the plan is any such
light given. Mr.. Brauer says that he
Irl Mr. Anderson well knew that no
uch right existed to either when they
entered the primary. and thus became
parties TO the contract outlined by the
plan. He also takes the ground that ii
vas unjust TO impose the burden and
expense Of another primary upon him or
he Democratic party OF HenricO county.
CAN'T THROW THEM OUT.
Continuing in his demurrer. Mr.. Brauer
says:
Nor can the many votes cast for me
by honest voters be thus ilegitimatzed
and be declared OF no effect. Said notice
Is insufficient. because it does not specify
therein the irregularities, errors. or fraud
alleged.
In answer 10 the alleged errors and
fraud at Hardin Precinct / aver % that
Mr.. Thornton. one OF the clerks at said
precinct became sick and requested Mr..
Barney FrisChkorn 10 tally the votes as
they were counted. while Mr.. Thornton
stood by and overlooked the work, and
when the votes were all counted the tai
~ Of Mr.. Frischkorn agreed with the
tally kept by Mr.. Jones, the other clerk,
and thereupon Mr.. Thornton tabulated the
vote and l deny that Mr.. Frischkorn ia
hulated the vote. 1t is true that five
tickets at a time were taken of the file
twice. but twice only, In order to expert
ment and ascertain il time would not
be saved but when II was ascertained
by this experiment that no time was
thereby saved in counting the votes this
was abandoned and one ticket at the
time was taken off the file and counted,
all Of which was honestly and fairly done.
20 1t is true that Walter Brauer and
many Of his friends and supporters were
permitted during the day to enter the
voting place, but this is not contrary
TO the plan
"3. 4. 5. and g. ! deny each and all the
allegations of facts set forth i'm the third,
fourth. fifth and sixth specifications OF
your notice OF contest at this precinct.
II deny that there were any other tickets
used than such as were provided by the
Chairman of the County Committee. In
reply 10 your claim that 1.-THE plan" was
violated when the County Committee
permitted X. II. Cottrell to become a
candidate for an office in no way con-
nected with that OF Treasurer after the
limited time. and that you were thereby
injured. l will simply say that this is
absolutely ridiculous, and shows the fri
volous grounds upon which your contest
Is based.
NONE CAST FOR THEM.
Il deny that any votes were cast for
you or John Lindsey. Jr. and counted
for me. At Smither's Precinct: I deny
each and all the allegations OF fact set
forth in the first and third specifications
Of your notice Of contest at this precinct
and. as TO the second specification. there
is nothing in the plan that prohibits
any one from entering the precinct" CINE
same answer is made as to allegations
Of irregularities and frauds at Bakers,
Carriers. and Joness Store Precincts)
AT Bruins Precinct: answer just as
] answered as to Hardin's. Bakers. and
Carter's Precincts. and l deny that the
Judges and clerks were not duly sworn In,
but IL this be true Il is not material
10 the validity OF the ballots cast, all
of these requirements being merely d.
rectory. deny that the Judges OF cleo
ton removed from the file tickets voted
contrary TO the plan.' 1t is true that
some person voted In the name OF John
Huffman for Mr.. Lindsey. and the ticket
was placed on the file, and Immediately
the vote was challenged, and when IL
was discovered then that the voter was
not John Huffman the ticket was taken
from the file and torn up In the presence
of the voter. At Barton Heights Pre-
cinct: deny each and all the allegations
OF fact set forth in the specifications OF
your notice of contest, at this precinct.
At Short Pump Precinct: L deny each and
all the allegations OF fact set forth in
the specifications OF your notice OF con-
test at this precinct; besides the allega-
lions Of fact set out In the first specin-
cation are immaterial At Shumaker's
Precinct: deny each and all the allega-
lions OF fact set forth In the specifications
Of your notice of contest at this precinct.
And, furthermore. / deny that the en-
tire plan OF the primary election was ig-
nored and set aside by the County Com
mittee and other persons, candidates.
interested In said election: but II any
parts OF said plan were ignored they
were immaterial parts. and this was done
with the full knowledge and cognizance
OF yourself or your agents. and without
objection thereto. until after the result
OF the election had been ascertained.
NO GROUND OF COMPLAINT.
II deny that any candidate for Urea
surer was permitted 20 become a candi-
date after IL o'clock n. on the 23d day
OF March. 1896. and the fact that one can
ddate for some other Office was permit