Staunton spectator and vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1896-1916, 1897-01-28
Mr.. YOST'S SPEECH.

space to print in full, we give below
the main text of Mr.. Yost's speech in
the Yost, Tucker contest, delivered on
the goth
Mr.. Walker. of Virginia. yield one
hour to the contestant Mr.. YOst.
Mr.. Yost. Mr.. Speaker, thank the
House for it's courtesy, which l shall
endeavor not to abuse.
The questions presented in this con
test are few and clearly defined. shall
undertake to go at once to the very
core OF the case.
After throwing out 3, 797 ballots cast
by honest and duly qualified electors,
the judges of election returned contes-
| tee by plurality of S92 The commit
tee concede that 731 of this plurality,
| including the 60 votes which they par
| ticularly count, were either erroneous
or fraudulent. They. give contestee a
plurality of 161, and in order to do SO
| throw out 1888 net ballots cast for con
testant, designated in the record as
| ''imperfect.n upon each OF which the
plain intention Of the voter is clearly
shown. Many of these Identical ballots
were counted and returned for contes-
tant by Democratic judges OF election.
Nay, more; contestee's leading counsel,
in conducting the recount, treated
them as absolutely valid, and without
| q moments hesitation or a word of ex
planationsassigned them in the tabula
| tion to the candidate entitled to them.
| If these 1873 net ballots are allowed,
| this case must be decided in favor of
| the contestant upon the report of the
committee, without any further inves-
tigation.
This net result of 1888 ballots for con
testant is shown by the committees re
port. On page 4 the committee say:
| ut appears that there were 454 'imper
fectly marked ballots for Yost and 271
for Tucker" The difference between
these two sums, 1888, is the net result in
favor of Yost. But, in addition to this.
there are 80 net ballots of the same class
proven out of the burned ballots, max
ing net total of 272 imperfect" bal
lots for Yost.
Now, from what evidence are those
Imperfect" ballots tabulated2 The
record shows that, acting under orders
of the several courts, a recount of the
ballots was had in each county. This
recount was conducted by representa-
tives of each party to the contest. The
different classes of ballots we're tabulat-
ed under separate headings. The I'm
perfect" ballots for Tucker were tabu
lated under this headings: "All marked
except Tucker-marking imperfect"
and the Imperfect" ballots for Yost
were tabulated under this heading;
! 'All marked except Yost-marking i'm
perfect" Each class was placed under
its distinct heading by agreement of
=, y, I,o f1l ~,
This agreement is certified in each in
stance. or else the fact of the agreement
is proven by witnesses who witnessed
the count and whose testimony is not
disputed.
Now, remember that upon each one
of these ballots the plain, undisputed,
confessed intention of the voter is
shown. Upon this point there is no
dispute, when you come down to the
record, and there can be no Disagree
ment.
The question, then, is narrowed down
to this: Should . ballot which, upon
investigation, clearly determines the
intention of a voter to vote for a par
ticular candidate be counted for that
candidate 2 The courts say it SHALL
and in this there is such uDanimity of
opinion that it is crystallized into a
fixed principle of law. Numerous au
thorities on this question are cited in
the views of the minority. I ask the
attention of the House only to few OF
them, and I further ask members to
examine these references as given in
that report.
There are some mandatory provi
sions in that Virginia law, and I want
to ask the attention of the House to
them for a moment.
The law provides that judges of cleo
ton shalt be chosen, whenever posi-
BILE, from members of different political
parties. This is a wise and reasona Die
provision of the law. The committee
disrea ard it. II you enforce that one
single provision and grant all else
claimed by the majority, this contes
tant must be seated. AT the following
precincts, casting the following vote,
there was no Republican judge. al
though the testimony shows that com
petent Republicans could have been
appointed at each precinct:
He then gave the counties and pre- |
cincts AT those Yosf got 545 votes, |
Tucker. 1,46S These precincts he ask |
ed to be thrown out.
- 1919 'Ai'"HNse'ciJ p'osiH'o1 VI tiiC |
law is enforced and all else the commit
tee claimed is granted, this contestant
must be seated by 400 plurality.
Again, the Virginia election law pro
ides an officer whose duty it Is to assist
illiterate voters. This officer is called
q special constable. The law was man
datory upon him to mark the ballots
for the iiliterate when the illiterate so
requested There can DE no mistake
about this, for that provision of the
law relating to his duties has been con
;tr4ed by the supreme court of appeals
Of Virginia. every member Of which is
q Democrat.
1t will be observed that the law
makes no distinction between the man
who is blind and the man who is un
able. by defective education to read.
II either asks the constable to mark his
ballot, the constable must mark it
Fhis mandatory provision of the law
was willfully and deliberately violated
1T a number of precincts. At Ward
No !, Staunton, which returns contes
zee plurality of 131. the constable, Is
West, confesses that he would not !
mark, as will be seen by the following
evidence (page $50, question 49,: |,
"Mr. fost did come to me, as hereto. l.
oio St1bou, anu urged upon me TO marx
tut the names on these ballots, and | |
positively declined to do it, as consid
red that that was to be done by the
,iector." II
AT Arlington precinct the constable
lot only refused to mark for RepubIi | t
ans, end aided Democrats. but openly t
at the polls that he did not )
propose to assist men who were voting a
.gainst him. See testimony of A. j II
boswell, page 315, and that of eleven c
thers of the same precinct I
The same violation of law is proven G
It number of other precincts. If this i
mandatory provision of the law is en- | c
creed, and all else the committee +
ia1ns is granted, the contestant must
De seated by over 400 majority /
Again, the Virginia law provides for r
n official ballot, and the greatest Sc q