The news & observer., 1897-02-11
GRANVILLE COUNTY CASE.
ARGUMENT SUBMITTED BY MESS.
ROYSTER AND BlGGS.
Mr.. Biggs Makes ane Able Talk Show
ing Both Fraud and illegal
Methods.

Yesterday afternoon in the Supreme
court building, the committee on Privil-
eyes and Elections concluded the hearing
of the evidence and the arguments in the
contested election case from Granville
of Alex. ]. Field contestant VS.. VIM. II.
Crews conteStee.
There were present Chairman Cook
and Representatives Creech, Bryan, of
Chatham, Person, of Wilson, Person, OF
Wayne, Cunningham, Ferguson, Duffy,
Brown, of the committee, and Messrs.
T.. Lanier and j. G. Biggs, attorneys
for contestant and B. S. Royster for
contestee, and other representatives and
citizens. There are only two questions in
this contest, one u question of fact and
the other a question of law. The ques-
tion of fact is whether the town of Ok
ford has 5000 inhabitants, and the ques-
tion of law is as 10 whether a ticket
| which contains more names than the
| elector has right to vote for is void as
| to the whole ticket, or only as to that
office for which too many are voted for.
AS ITO the population of Oxford, the
evidence established the fact beyond
| doubt that the population was less than
/ DBOOOy AA A<i@I hCSc A1AtL @yOOOs ANQI OltIS
| was this shown by the evidence Of citi-
| zens, by removals, deaths and otherwise,
but census of the town taken since the
election showed only 1914 people. This
| census was taken accurately I'M three
| quarters of the town, but estimated in
| one-quaTter owing 10 the fact that color
| ed people under instructions from the
ctntestee and his friends refused to give
| information in one quarter and attempted
| thereby TO prevent the census being
| taken.
Upon the conclusion OF the reading
OF the testimony, Mr.. Danier opened the
argument for Mr.. Field.
| He read the election law which says
| that whenever any ticket contains the
names of more persons than one elect0r
| has the right TO vote for, such ticket
| is VOID and must not be counted He
| showed that this section was a verbatim
copy of the law of 1876 and Chairman
| Cook interrupted by saying that he copied
| it from that act of 1876.
Mr.. Lanier then directed the commit
| tees attention TO the case of Deloatch
| vs.. Rogers decided by our Supreme
| court, ia which they decide the identical
| question at issue in this contest and told
1 Iuhl Li4E N8ttAIE kIChGL ~ fDtn HAl0 HOb dS
the contestee contends, only a part He
cited cases from New York sustain
ing his position. He then went fully over
| the evidence in the case.
| Mr.. Royster followed for the contestee,
and with a discussion of the evidence
| briefly, directed his argument to the legal
| point involved
| He contended that as no fraud was
Il
| ity for Crews, he was entitled to retain
his seat.
That the fact that the voters had voted
| for more magistrates than they had a
right to, vitiated the ticket only as to
| the magistrates, and not as to the repre-
sentatives ON that ticket.
That the object of the constitution
was that every voter be allowed to vote
and have that vote counted
| That the election being fairly conduct
| ed, the Legislature must not regard the
! fact that too many names were on the
| ticket. He cited several cases, as sus-
tanning this position.
| Mr.. Biggs closed the argument for
! Field.
| He said that the election franchise was
not natural or inherent right but a
! DKAN MCSt SIdulSu py IltG CbULG 10 DE
exercised in subordtnation to the law
| and the Legislature has the power to
| prescribe the manner of exercising this
| privilege.
| That the Legislature of 1895 prescrib-
| ed the same and among the requirements,
was the section saying that no ticket
shall contain more names than the elec-
| tor is entitled to vote for. The the pro
x-ic;npG Of tho Lax Iofo OF
directory and he cited numerous cases
to sustain his position.
That public policy and the stability of
elections required that these provisions
be mandatory, else there would be no
fixed rule or law to guide election of
fcers in counting the ballots. Mr.. Biggs
further argued that the section under
consideration was a plain, unambiguous,
certain and definite statutory provision,
that there was no necessity for resorts TO
the courts for a construction Of the same,
| that no other meaning could be given
to the language than that contended for
by the contestant, that the intention Of
the Legislature is unmistakble, and that
the entire ticket was void, as was held
by our courts, by the courts of Mississ-
ippi, Connecticut, Kansas, and challeng-
| ed the other side to cite any case from
any State that contradict his position.
That the law requires not only that
an election be conducted honestly and
without fraud, but it must also be legal,
and If the statutory requirements are
not complied with, 1T is illegal, citing a
recent State case.
The committee will meet at $3.50 this
afternoon in the State Library to agree
upon report TO the House of Repre-
sentatives.
Atlanta, Ca, Feb. 10.-The Journal
this afternoon says, editorially: "The