Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-04-30
VIRGINIA ELECTION CASES.
oteE TO Retain His Seat and Thorpe
To BE Given That of NckenueN

Representative DeArmond of Missouri.
from elections committee No. .. yesterday
submitted to the House the conclusions Of
mat committee on the contested election
case of J. Hampton Holye VS.. Peter 7 ois,.
rom me sixth Virginia district Accord
!HS 10 the returns, the report SAYS. con-
teStcS received 2.3iS more votes tbap 90
testdht' ne record contains but few
pages OF testimony, and IL would be inn,
Possiple 10 give TO such testimony any ef.
iccI ny winch the seat in controversy could
DE awarded to the contestant or copIa D.
taken from the contested Contestant baS
asheu mat the case be opened for the taxi
ing OF further testimony, but he has failed
~ SNOW any sufficient reason for such
course. Not only Is there no aposrant ,aS.-
son Tor making an exception in this case
10 fair and long-esta blished statutory
IuIc llXlhs the time for the taking of testi-.
HhollS III contested election cases hut from
contestants own showing il appears tbat
III the case were opened the result of thu
contest would not be different The com
tnlttee therefore unanimously recommends
Inc adoption of a resolution declaring thar
MI. Otey was duly elected
representative Walker of Virginia from
elections committee No 3, made a report
on The contested election case of r. r
Thorpe VS.. W. II. Mckinney, from the
fourth Virginia district. The notice of con-
test IN this case, says the report charges
fraud and misconduct on the part of the
erection OF officers at nearly every pre-
the opinion that the entire vote at the
second, third, fourth. fifth and sixth wards
Oh petersburg, al the precincts of Church
roads, in Dinwiddic county; Jeffrcss store
IN Nottoway county; Columbian Grove
Moherrin, and Pleasant Grove, in Lunen-
burg county, where the names of the can
uldates were alterGated upon the ballots
and where ''all the elections officers We're
democrats and other fraudulent and il
legal acts are shown" should be rejected
These precincts gave contestee ,356 ma
Joiity over contestant, and rejecting these
IT elects contestant Icy a majority of 51i
The report then points out other alleged
irregularities. and says: add to these
evidences OF fraud and conspiracy the
many proofs OF error, fraud and irregu-
lar1ty at the various precincts and II is
clear that the contestant Crhorpe) was
duly elected by majority of the legal
votes cast at said election and is entitled
to the seat"
Representatives DeArmond Codding. C.
X. Bell and w. A. Jones submit a minority
report in this case, in which they say:
Not being able to accept as our own or
10 lndorse the report (of the majority the
Undersigned members respectfully submit
our conclusions, upon due considerations
OF the record in the case, which is that
by his own showing tcontostce having in
troduced no testimony the contestant is
entitled to be admitted 10 the House as
the Representative from the fourth dis
tricI of Virginia. We are glad to he able
To state further that We find nothing in
the record which tends TO cast any re-
Election upon either party to the contest
Upon the other hand, we regret that, in a
number of instances, the wholesome pro-
vision of the Virginia statutes, requiring
the appointment, when possible, of the
judges Of elections from more than one
party, was igl ored. In large part, how
ever, what consider improper or wrong
in the conduct of election officers Judged
fairly by the rec ord to which they are not
parties and in which, with very few
ceptions, they do not appear as witnesses.
may not unreasonably be attributed 70
erroneous views respecting the require
ments of the new election law Of Virginia
IN operation for the first time in the cleo
ton Of November, 1894. rather than 10 any
settled purpose to violate the Law or ~
defraud the honest elector."