Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-04-02

Totals .............15,7S7 1890 1.S95 %
AS Will be seen by the official vote
the returns. showed plurality for Tbs
| contestee of 1888 votes. BY the repor
OF the majority this plurality is over
| come and plurality of 51l9 is made on
| for the contestant. To accomplish thi!
| result the majority have deducted from
| the contestee's plurality of 2,SS9-
!. The entire vote received by him IN
ten precincts, amounting 10 1.5l7.
2. The entire vote received by him II
fourteen other precincts, amounting tC
1,755.
Changing the contestees plurality int
plurality for the contestant of S5}.
The majority then add to this S53 plu-
rality found for the contes tant-
8. Tie votes in fOTty-fOur precincss
which he claims to have proven i'm excess
of the vote returned for him. 1851.
4. The votes in twenty-nine precincts
which he claims were hindered, delayed
INSTRUCTED, and prevented from voting
for him, 1889
Thus giving contestant a plurality OF
5.l99, which. by a typographical error.
doubtless, is made in the report TO be
SIG.
1t is the opinion OF the undersigned
members of Election Committee No 3
that this reversal of pluralities by the
majority of said committee in their re-
port is not justified, either by the law
or the evidence in the case.
NlINNf1NlA I-IIsA lON LA W.
1t would be interesting and helpful in
the very beginning of this investigation
If we could ascertain just exactly what
position the majority takes upon the
question of the validity of the Virginia
election law under which this election
was held, and of the obligation of Con-
gress TO recognize the provisions of that
law in determining the legality of this
election. The value of such knowledge
is apparent
If the law is valid and Congress, in
determining this contest, is bound by il.
then all such alleged irregularities in
the conduct of the election as may rea-
sonably be supposed to result from the
intricacies of the law Itself or from igno-
rant misconception of 1t, are removed
from the category of those fraudulent
practices which destroy the value of the
returns as evidence, justifying the re-
lection of the entire polls. and become.
unless committed with fraudulent in
tent, mere Irregularities. TO be corrected
Qt Is true) where possible but not of
themselves vitiating the returns. This
is too plain TOR argument, for no man
can be said to be guilty of fraud If he
strictly follows the provisions Of the
law, nor If he ignorantly interprets OF
executes it.
If, on the other hand, the law is in
valid. Or-which amounts 10 the same
thing-Congress can ignore the decision
of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Nir-
ginia declaring IL valid and reasonable I'm
its provisions, then Congress may de-
clare the conduct of election officers at
the polls unreasonable, oppressive. and
illegal though In strict accordance with
the election Of the State and may de-
termine the election invalid. nOtwith-
standing II mas been conducted in true
obedience to the law. But i'm such case
the decision would be not because the
election law was tainted with fraud
but because Congress determines that the
State has no election law which can be
honestly administered.
The majority report takes no decided
ground on this question. 1t says that the
contestant does not attack the constitu-
tionality of the law, though he says i'm
his brief:
1.-THE effort was made to induce the
Court of Appeals to pronounce the whole
aw to be a scheme of fraud and a de-
vice to evade the Constitution of Vir-
ginia. The Court of Appeals Of Virginia
had been elected by the same body that
devised these election laws. 1t declined
% pronounce the judgment that its CO
ordinate branch of the government had ]