Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-10-31
FIGHT THE CONSPIRACY.

In the Journal of the House Of Dele
gates for the session OF 1890, i'm the
contested election case of J. n. Hutche-
son versus Ross Hamilton. we find
a committee report which is Of interest
just now The report is signed by
Samuel F. Coleman, j. y. Ryan, J. ID.
shepperson S. S. Wilkins, b. w. Arnold,
J. f. Garland. Joseph d. Davis, S.
Il. Ellis. John A. Browning, and John
w. Crockett-the first named being the
distinguished and beloved Circuit-Judge
Coleman. of Cumberland.
The seat that was held by Ross Hamil-
ton (colored). was claimed by Mr. Hutche-
son, on the ground that at certain
voting precincts in Mecklenburg county.
the colored voters were requested and
practically required to vote their ballots
open. and did so vote them. the judges
Of election being compelled 10 fold said
ballots after they had been handed them
by the voters"
And at one of these precincts the ballots
"were distinctly marked by the Repub-
llcan party managers with a black cross
mark"
The committee first considered the
question of the open ballots. and after
quoting the constitutional provision on
the subject of elections by ballot, and
the Virginia statute. and citing various
eminent English and american law
writer's, said:
Applying these principles of law and
the statute 10 the evidence In the case.
we are clearly Of the opinion that the
action Of the Republican party managers
ia requiring the voters at these two pre-
clncts TO vote open ballots. and in taking
down the names Of the voters in
order to be able to identify them as is
clearly shown by the evidence. was vio-
lative OF the constitutional right guaran-
fced 10 every voter Of voting a secret
ballot. and that the ballots thus cast
were Illegal and void; and il also clearly
appears from the evidence. and is prac-
tical,y admitted by the cOntestee, that
tore were largely more than enough OF
thee Illegal ballots cast for him TO over
come the hfty-four majority given to him.
Upon this ground we are Of the opinion
thlt the contestant. and not the con-
teatoc. IS entitled 10 the seat from the
county OF Mcckenburg. But whether
this be true or not. there can be no
doubt that III Republican ballots voted
for the contestee Hamilton. at HagoOd's
Sore Precinct. which were marked
a.ross the back with q large black
cross mark. were utterly void, and
gsoud NOT have been counted. said
cross mark having been used, as
admitted. by the Republican party
managers for the purpose Of detecting
ard knowing how the voters cast their
ballots. See authorities quoted, and also
the case Of Williams VS.. Stein. decided
ty the Supreme Court OF Indiana under
. constitutional provision entirely similar
10 ours. and quoted IN McCreafy on Elec-
lions, section 4l3. where the author says:
The Constitution OF Indiana provides
that all elections by the people shall be
by ballot; statute Of that state. passed
in 1859. provided that 1T shall be the
duty of the inspector Of any election on
receiving the ballot OF any voter 10 have
the same numbered with figures on the
outside or back thereof 10 correspond
with the number placed opposite the
name Of such voter on the poll-lists kept
~ the clerk OF said election
This statute. says the committee. the
State Supreme Court held TO be unccn-
stitutional and void. And the commit
tee says further that IL was decided by
the supreme Court OF California IN the
case OF Kirk w. Rhodes, and quoted in
McCreary OF Elections, section 49, that
II the elector wIlfusly neg,ec,s 10 comply