Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-01-12
| rectory in thee character. asa nOs iln-

rectory in thes character. ssd nos i'a'
In the contected-elcction case OF kch-
ardson VS. RaIney. in the Forty-hitn Cos-
cre,s. one OF tbs grounds Of contest as
signed was that the election wss S0n,
Quoted by two instead OF three p1sclnss..
officers, as required by law. The ComHa.-
tee on Elections held this provision. r.
ouir.n- three precinct oficers. TO be o.
rectory, and that ito violation. IN tne ~
sence Of fraud, could not vitlate the eirc-
ton. No action was ever taken W '''
House on the committees report
If we keep IN view these generai prin-
ciples and bear in mind that irreguia.i-
ties are generally to be disregaI1eu' IN
less the statute expressly occidIcS e'a
they shall be fatal TO tho election. OF
unless they are such In thems lives 70
change or render doubtful the resvit,
we shall find no difficulty n cohsHu'"s
the Virginia statutes.
WHAT THE CODE PROVIDES.
Section III OF the Coda provides that
cit shall be the duty" of the Electors,
Board tosappoint three judges, VINO shaiI
Constitute the Judges OF election; IL IS
also provided that II any judge tili 70 az
tend ''It shall be lawful for the judge or
judges in attendance 10 appoint another,
or others, TO make the complement oil
three. 1t IL clear enough that the sta
tute contemplates thee judges. not only
from such idea being expressed In SO
many words. but because In numerous
places reference Is made to "a MAJOR.
ty' Of the judges; But nowhere IL !.
stated, or suggested, that three shall be
essential to the validity of the election.
The language OF the statute In this con-
nection is significant: 1T shall De me
duty" OF the Electoral Board to point
three Judges; at shall be Lawful ioT
the Judge or Judges present to appoint
another or others. But nowhere Is IL
suggested In the statute. by the employ
ment Of negative words, or otherw,se,
that the Legislature intended TO avo'n
fair and honest election because the num-
Der of judges mentioned In the statue
did not participate in conducting IL. 70
so hold would be to place higher .aiue
on the statute than on the right itseii !
It would be- sacrifice Oh SUBSTANCES W
form. <s. ,ha,
we are OF opinion that the fact that
two Judges only acted, instead or tnIrs,
was an lrregularity of method not soniS
10 the substance OF the requirement, ana
that such irregularity does not, In tne
absence OF fraud or other act ihvoivins
the result of the election In uncertainty {,
deprive the voters OF their CONSTITUENCIES
right TO have their votes counted az cas- :, !.
While our decision OF this question: -
ba sed upon principle, yet there 10 anotner
ground upon which We feei cohslraiieu
TO reach similar conclusion. - -,
Subsection 3 of section o., page %; 90, o,
the Code provides that words puIpor Liz
officers. or other persons, snall De con-
strued as giving such authority to a ma
iority OF such officers, or other peIsoInls'
unles, II shall be otherwise expressly ue-
clared In the law. giving the au'hon'y'
A MERITLEss PROPOSITION.
This IS a rule OF construction. prescribed
by the Legislature. applicable 70 an s' a.,
tutes. and, In our opinion, 70 tne c ono
question. IL so applicable, u u co. ill.,
sive OF the question under consluei a.lo o
"a there IS certainly nothing In the sia.
tute concerning elections expressly VI
even implicitly declaring otherwise.
The objection to the vote -polled AT hec
Rank Pfecinct is that the judges, who
conducted the election failed 10 ,ahe on
subscribe the oaths required OF them py
law before entering upon their oulies az
such officers. 1T, o,o.,,;or
Tho doctrine is well settled that IN the
absence OF fraud the acts OF an oIhcei
de facto of an election are Nallu as 70
third parties and the public. In oruel
to give validity TO the oiilclsi acs Oh ,h ,ev
officer of an election, as FAR as my
affect third parties and the pubic, anu
i'm the absence OF fraud, it 10 only necSS-
sary that such officer shall have Soioi
of authority. The authorities are aDuii-
dant which sustain the proposition. IL u
oniv necessary TO refer to McCrary on
Elections. pages e6-T. and TO the ledulis
case of State vs. Carroll. IS conn., AZ
(reported In Am. Rep, 4s), wnlch col
ta,ns an exhaustive review OF thiS sun
ject. ., ..-.. q
In the earlier congressional cases q
different view was adopted, but the Iuis
as here announced Is In consonance VIZ
sound principle. and Is sanctloneu ~ ~, on'
overwhelming weight OF juulclal oplhioi
and the later congressional decisions.
The affection to the vote polled at 10
Gust Leve! Precinct. IS that pstsons
other than those allowed by law. old i,s sn
-. 80
less than ~ feet OF the ballot-box.
We consider this objection wl,hou'
merit. This statute which forbldS any
person. other than the elector oneIlhg "
vote. to be within 10 feet OF inc paIlo.
hox. IS plainly directory; II cOuld never
nave been the intention OF the Legisla
ture 10 annul an election because OF AZ
infraction of that provision, Such n rul, '
of construction would lead to end'ess
contests and the grossest wrong am
iniustice. AttentioIr is called 10 the fact
that the evidence shows that the allegeu
Violation of the provision in question re-
suited I'm no injustice. III Is coiciusNel'
shown that every citizen, who had con,
stitutional right to vote az this preclnc'
had an opportunity TO exercise That ilgnt
that no voter was unduly inhuencsd H
casting hts vote; that no illegal ballo'
was received: that the election was con.
Quoted i'm such manner, IN point oi
form that the true number or lesal No'cs
was asccrtained with certainty.
THE VOTERS RIGHT.
The voter IS not TO be deprived or ms
right. and the citizens are not ~ lose
the result of an election fairly held. be,
cause of some unimportant omission oi
form, or OF the negligence. carelessness
or Ignorance Of some eiecton-Onlcer, Ga
~ the failure to carry out some non-es'
sential direction of the law.
our conclusion of the whole case, ~
presented 10 US, IL that the Irregular.
ties complained OF. are infractions ol
the directory provisions OF the law, ana
that they ought not. in themselves, TO Vi
tiate THE election.
We are further OF opinion that the stat,
ute. section III, of the Code, construed
according to subsection 3. section .
page 81, of the Code, gave authority I.
a majority of the judges to conduct th'
election at News Ferry Precinct.
Your committee. therefore. recommend
for adoption by the House Of Delegates
the following resolutions:
Resolved. That III. G. Hudson was MOI
elected and is not entitled to a seat II
the House OF Delegates from the county
Resolved. That S. b. Reese was elect
ed and is entitled 10 a seat In the House
of Delegates from the county or HALIFAX