New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-04-14
TO SEAT a REPUBLICAN.
DEMOCRATS VOTE IN FAVOR or THE cONTE

DEMOCRATS VOTE IN FAVOR or THE CONTEST
ANT IN a VIRGINIA DISTRICT.
Washington. April 10 (speciaD.-The unexpected
has again happened. This time II Is the agrcemen,
OF the Democratic members Of an Elections Com
mittee Of the House OF Representatives to a report
In favor OF Republican contestant In an election
wherein the sitting member is a Democrat This
unusual phenomenon occurred In Elections Com
mittec No. to-day. when II was unanimously de-
c!ded TO report In favor OF The contestant In the
case OF X. r. TLorp Osepublican) against w. X.
McKenney DemocraD. of tho WITH District OF Viz
GINA The members OF the minority OF the
mittee are Messrs. Bell (Tex). De Almond (Mo)
and Jones Va)
According 10 the official returns upon which the
certificate OF election awarded TO Mckinney
he received a plurality OF s6i votes. The election
was conducted under the Infamous Walton Election
law which virtually legallzed and encouraged
fraudulent practices. The latter reached such pro-
portons In 1894 as to arouse the alarm and indlgna
ton of all decent citizens irrespective OF party. and
provoke a demand for the repeal or modification OF
the law which the last Democratic Legislature did
not dare wholly to ignore. The testimony taken In
behalf OF the contestant and printed In the record
shows that the most glazing frauds were committed
in election districts In which the coiored voters out
numbered the white voters. In the counties OF
Dinwddle, Lunenburg and Nottaway and the city
Of Petersburg. In which the coored voting popula-
ton exceeds the white voting population by more
than 1000 In which substantially all the colored
voters are Republicans. and in which there are
many hundred white Republicans 1853 votes
returned for Mckinney and only LIN for Thorp.
Mr. Mckinney chose not TO take any testimony IN
his own behalf. and his printed brief In reply to
that OF the contestant was mainly batch OF
abusive partisan assertions. wholly unsupported by
proof some Of which were an insult 70 the dignity
OF the House OF Representatives. as well as to the
intelligence OF its members. The case OF the con
testant was prepared with great care and thorough
ness. as weil as marked ability. II some Of the
other contestants had prepared their cases In
similar manner they might have succeeded In esiab-
fishing their claims but they failed to do so.
Elections Committee No. 3 also decided two other
Virginia cases to-day both OF them In favor OF the
sitting members who Democrats. one
the case of j. Hampton Hoge Republican, against
Peter J. Otey Demoorat). OF the With District. the
decision In which unanimous and the other
was the case Of George W. Cornett (Republican)
against Claude A. Swanson (DemocraD, OF the With
District. In the latter case a minority report will
be submitted by several OF the Republican members
recommending that the contestant be seated.
Mr. jenkins (Rep. WIS., reported 10 the House
the contested election OF Johns against Stokes
from the With South Carolina District In favor OF
Stokes the sitting member. and gave notice that he
would call It up on April q.