Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-01-12
LAW OF ELECTIONS.
Report Of the House Committee n The
Hudson.KeeSee Contest.
THE QUESTION OF OMISSION.
Position Taken That Failure 10 Meet
Certain Immaserial statutory re.
uuirements should Not Invniidatc
the Votes That We're Cast.


Of the Committee on Privileges and Elec-
tons refusing TO unseat Mr.. 5. i. Reese,
the Populist member from Halifax, sub
mitted 10 the House last Wednesday.
This report was prepared by Mr.. Ran
dolph Harrison. chairman OF the COM
sniftee. and is a valuable exposition OF the
principles OF election as laid down In the
Walton law. The report. which is signed
by Messrs. Randolph Harrison. Baker +.
Ice. w. p. McRae. George J. Hundley,
j. c. Parker. Charles Smith. q. @. Gale
her, w. s. Hale, r. q. Turpin. II. j. vale.
IT, n. Einstein. and w. II. Ii. Cooke. reads
rs follows:
The Committee Of Privileges and Elec-
tons. 10 whom were referred the papers
relating to the contested election case OF
a. e. Hudson We. s. Ii. Keesee In the
rounty of Halifax. having had the same
under consideration, submit tho following
report:
>The contestant, II. c. Hudson, claims the
seat now occupied by 5. Il. Reese upon
the grounds following:
/. That the election held at News ferry
Precinct, in the county of Halifax, the
returns from which show that the sitting
member received a majority over MS OPP
ponent OF twenty-nine votes. was con-
Quoted and held by only two judges-to
wit, Ii. 4. Covington and A. {. Farmer
while the statute providing for elections
requires that three Judges OF election
duly qualified aud sworn. SHAH hoid 'he
polls at each precinct.
2 That the election held at Red Bank
Precinct, In said county. the returns from
which show that tho sitting member re-
ceived a majority OF fourteen votes over
the contestant, was conducted and held
by Judges and clerks who failed 10 take
or subscribe the oaths required or them
by law, before entering upon their ou-
ties as such officers, while the statute
providIng for elections requires that be-
fare any fudge or clerk of election enters
,,pon any of the duties imposed upon MIN
bv law he shall take and subscribe an
oath. the form of which Is given In eection
lis OF the Code.
THAT at the election held at Locust
Level Precinct, the returns from wnich
show that the sitting member received
naiority OF 1l3 votes over the contestant.
,ar.ors other than those allowed by law
Ala enter and stay within forty feet OF
the ballot-box AZ, A..
Tor the foregoing Irregularities the
contestant insists that the vote OF inc
three precincts mentioned should nave
been rejected by the Board or Canvassers,
and the certificate OF election AWARDED
to him instead OF the sitting MEMBER
f. B. Keesee. as
sno Of which the contestant. Hudson re-
ceived 1888, and the contestee, heesee' Ie
ceived /. @o2 Cincluding the vote OF Locust
Level Precinct counted in obediehce 10
,eremptory mandamus awarded py inc
Court Of Appeala). from whicn IL aPpeai'
that the sitting member received ma
jority over his opponent or iour .ose'
IN the total number cast. H. therefore,
tha vote OF either Of the precincts men
,ioned should be rejected, the result wouId
no IN Give the contestant the seat In con-
troversy. The record contains no cnaiso
az fraud. or other act which wouio &c
n,,va a lawful elector applying 10 VOC
81 bis privilege, but, on the contrary us
evidence shows that the election AZ ea'I
precinct mentioned was conducleu ~
lair and orderly manner, ana ,ne W." 70.
the people honestly ascertalneo anu
ported.
CONSIDER BUT ONE THING.
=. ,ho rendlnr case wo have nothing,
...r.Sors 10 consider, but the abstract
~,estion whether an omission 10 comply
s.,,,h the statutory requirements IN queS-
,,on nor se iuyalidates the votes at INC
,~.c,ncts named. If these requirements
wh,cb ere alleged to have been violated
ma directory. and not mandatory or Juils-
dictional, tho votes were proper! a"o"
ed. .,.a ~
49, Ecrrv Precinct is that but two
<,dges served during toe election, where-
the law requires the presence oil three
Judges -. 40 effort
was made TO secure the services OF a
third fudge, but without avail; and there-
,,pon the two remaining judges, represent,
ing different political parties. conauc'eu
made to the regularity OF the eiecuoi VII
any other ground.
Tbs right to vote and to have that
vote counted is a constitutional right. Ar
ticle Ill. section !, 1t Is not con4erreu
nv statute. The statute merely regu-
hates the method by which the right Is
20 be exercised, and the result ascer'aineu.
Hence. In the questions concerning inc
effect OF a failure to observe one or more
% tho prescribed statutory formalities.
the principle that where a statute gives
right and prescrlbes a particular meth
"a for it's exercise such metnod
must be followed is inapplicable. The
right existed before the statute was en-
acted and the rules or forms prescribed
nv the statute for the exercise or THIS
right are designed TO afford an oppor-
the elective franchise. and TO ascertain
with certainty the result
AN ANALOGOUS PRINCIPLE.
An analogous principle is well Illus
trated by the case OF Meister VS.. Moore.
ss limited States, 76: which involved the
validity OF a marriage contract without
the observance of the prescribed statu-
tory requirements. there being no license
and no celebrant-though the statute re-
ouired both. Mr.. Justice Strong, de-
iivering the opinion of the court, said:
statutes in many OF the States. 1t Is
true. regulate the mode OF entering into
the contract OF marriage. but they do not
confer the right. Hence, they are not
within the principle that where a statute
creates a right and provides remedy
for its enforcement the remedy is ex-
elusive. statute may declare that no
marriage shall be valid unless Solemn
lied in a prescribed manner: but such
an enactment is very different thing
from a law requiring all marriages TO be
entered into In the presence OF magis-
trate or clergyman and that Ii be preced-
ed by a license or publication OF banns.
or be attested by witnesses
Che authorities are almost unanimous
IN maintaining the principle that the
tribunai before. which Is pending the
question Of the regularity OF an election
wilt, IN the absence of fraud. be astute
q uphold the popular will, and TO regard
ire prescribed forms for the exercise or
the right OF suffrage as largely directory.
TIE law 10 thus stated by Judge Cooley:
'sEiectioa statutes are to be tested like
other statutes, but with leaning TO
lis-rsIry, in view OF the great public
purposes which they accomplish: and ex-
ceot where they specially provide that
thing shall be done in the manner indi-
Gated and none other. their provisions.
designed merely for the information and
guidance Of the officers, must be regarded