Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-03-20


spectfuIly represents that he was a can
didate in the Democratic primary, held
in this city on March 10. 1893, for the
nomination as Commissioner Of Revenue
OF the city Of Richmond, and that he
complied with all the requirements pre-
scribed by your committee. The other
candidates for this office were Messrs.
X. b. Munford and f. NJ. Noble. The
total number Of votes cast for the three
candidates, as reported, is 1851, divided
as follows
X. Il. Munford ........... ............'.3,SIo
O. A. Hawkins minimum. ..........3,y2o
f. NJ Noble ............. ................IISl
The vote as returned shows a total
vote i'm Clay Ward of 3,0S}, only 3,Ol1 OF
which are reported in returns for all
three candidates for this office, leaving
seventy-two C2) unaccounted for. The
same comparison in Monroe Ward leaves
twenty-five (2j) unaccOunted for: In Madi-
son Ward thirteen Q3) unaccounted for
in Jefferson Ward, sixteen Q6) unac-
counted for; i'm Marshall Ward. forty
five 40 unaccounted for, and in Jackson
Ward, ten QW unaccounted for.
This presents a total OF che hundred
and eighty-one QSD votes in the city,
which were rejected or not accounted for
I'm the return of votes for rne candidates
for this office. OF these GRE hundred
and eighty-one QSD ballots which were
cast by voters of Richmond, there were
rejected illegally many legal ballots cast
for your petitioner, which should have
been counted for your petitioner, and
il this had been cone the result would
have been so changed in fave Of your
petitioner as TO have elected him as the
nominee for this office.
IMPROPER ERASURES.
Your petitioner further represents that
Of the said one hundred and eighty-one
nSD votes rejected or unaccounted for,
there were more than fifty-one ballots
cast i'm favor of your petitioner, said bal
lots showing your petitioners name UNI
scratched, while the name of the other
two candidates were erased by having
lines drawn through them crosswise, and
these lines or marks extended through
three fourths Of the said two names in
tended TO be erased; that all such bal
lots should have been counted, and had
this been done, the result as reported
would have been so changed as 70 have
elected your petitioner as the nominee
for this office.
Your petitioner further states that it
was publicly proclaimed by one of the
Judges of First Precinct of Marshall
Ward, i'm Sanger Hall on the night Of
March 18th, in the presence of your com
mittee, that forty-three $50 votes were
thrown out In said First Precinct OF
Marshall Ward, and not counted for any
Of the candidates for any office. 1t as
also publicly stated that fifty or 'ixty
votes were in like manner thrown out in
Fifth Precinct Of Clay Ward; he is also
advised and AYERS. that I'm similar pro-
portions entire ballots were thrown cut
i'm many other precincts all over the city.
because Of supposed defects in the said
ballots and your petitioner represents
that a great many of these ballots were
cast for him and were legal as TO this Of
fee, and were improperly rejected, and
had they been counted they would have
changed the result in favor of your petit
TONER
GROSS IRREGULARITIES.
Your petitioner further alleges that
gross Irregularities occurred in First Pre-
cinct of Clay Ward, where regular tickets
were in possession of parties in the store
of Kelly & Ford, corner Main and Short
streets, and that these tickets were
marked for or by voters In the above
mentioned store, and I'm rear of the bar
ber-shop on the south side Of Main street
between Morris and Short streets, all of
these points being anywhere from eighty
five to one hundred and fifty feet or more
from the poling-place. That ballots is
sued from First Precinct of Clay Ward
were distributed and marked for and by
voters on Cary street between Beech and
Reservoir streets, some two or three
hundred yards from said First Precinct.
That numerous voters were allowed 70
take their ballots to other points than
within the booths, and altogether outside
of the fortyfoot limit, at First Precinct
Of Clay Ward and mark them: this ir-
regularity occurred at the Second and
Third precincts of Jefferson Ward, and
your petitioner believes. and, therefore,
charges, that the same irregularity oc-
CURED at many other precincts, all OF
which was contrary 20 the plan pre-
scribed by your committee
Your petitioner further states that Mr.
w. o. Steger, a deputy under Mr.. r. b.
Munford, the present Commissioner of
Revenue, and a candidate for the nomi-
nation in the election in question. was
allowed in the polling places at the First
Precinct of Clay Ward during the count
OF the ballots cast in that precinct, and
that he handled ballots voted In the cleo
ton held on the 18th day Of March, 1898:
all OF which was Illegal and improper and
without authority or permission from the
superintendent Of Clay Ward, the only
constituted authority that could permit
his presence in the polling place during
the count Of the votes. according to your
plan, made. as II was, 10 secure q fair
election, and such permission by whom
soeVer given was calculated 10 throw
great discredit on the returns from this
precinct.
LAW VIOLATED.
Your petitioner further states that du-
ring the day OF March 10, he visited the
Second Precinct OF jefferson Ward, and
saw Mr.. Harvey Davis one OF Mr.. r. b.
Munford's deputies. upstairs In the Old
Market Hall and within six or eight feet
OF the table from which the officers were
giving out ballots and within the same
distance of the booths in which voters
prepared their ballots and that said
Davis had been there and remained there
for about six hours soliciting votes for
Mr.. r. II. Munford all in violation or the
law and your plan" This, your petit
toner respectfully suggests. was not cal
culated TO inspire confidence In the pro-
prlety and carefulness OF the officers or
said precinct.
Your petitioner further represents mat
during the count of ballots cast In FIRST
Precinct Monroe Ward. one OF the sworn
officers in said precinct was physicauy