Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-01-12

ties quoted, the committee mas arrived
the above conclusion. and such concIn
sion affectually disposes OF the conten
ton OF contestant that section III OF I'M
| Code provided for Just such conditions ~
those I'm this case. II the Judges. as WI
believe, held over until their successori
| qualified. and they were on hand, as the,
were. to hold said election. then there
was no need TO swear I'm three voters e
hold the election; that provision was
made only for the purpose OF guarantee
ing TO the people the right to cast theii
ballots. and was intended TO apply only
where the men who had a right to ac'
as Judges refused or neglected TO act, IN
which case the people should not foI
that reason be deprived or the right 20
vote but might call into service three
voters who are qualified to act az judges
In the case before us, those having the
legal right to serve as judges neither re-
fused nor neglected TO serve. but on TN
contrary. did serve, and hence there was
no need 10 invoke the aid OF the provision
OF section III In order that an election
might be conducted.
| We come now 10 consider the second
] point in the contention OF contestant. Tne
| committee Is frank to admit without
going mo detail. that the ballots used at
| the precincts from which returns were
! received and counted were not printed,
sealed. and distributed In strict accord
ance with tho provisions of the law: Dut
we further conceive that In every sub
stantial particular the ballots conformed
to the law. and that the provisions not
complied with were directory and not
mandatory, and hence n noncompliance
with them should not, where there Is no
evidence of fraud or where the irregu-
larty has not hindered any who were
entitled from exercising tha right OF sur
frage, render void the election the
right TO vote and 10 have that vote
counted is n constitutional right tArtlcie
ILL., section !. Constitution. Statutes mere
ly prescribe the methods by which the
right IL to be exercised. and the result as
certained. The authorities are strong IN
maintaining the principle that wnere
there is no fraud. and the popular VIII
has been ascertsined. that there should
be great hberality in constituting statutes
concerning election with regard TO pre-
scribed form which IL Is contended have
not been complied with. II statute says
that noncompliance with provision
shall vitiate an election, then. of course,
the courts must require compliance with
that provision; but where there Is merely
q certain provision directed. with no pro-
vision az 10 the result of noncompliance,
then in the absence of fraud the provision,
unless II be some requirement I'm its ma
ture essential to the conducting of the
election should be held to be merely d.
rectory These principles, we believe,
have been repeatedly applied by the
courts and legislatures, State and ma
tional. We could quote many authorities
10 sustain this position, but deem II need
less to do so.
QUESTION INVOLVED LAST SESSION.
The same principle mot the same
question: was involved in the case |
OF Hudson against Kessee. decided |
by the House of Delegates OF Virginia at |
session of 1885, and we called attention /
to the authorities quoted in the report OF |
the committee on that case, found on
pages 139 to 14S, inclusive. of the Journal |
Of the House Of Delegates Of 1896.
However reprehensibe may have been
the action of the Electoral Board OF Nor
that it was reprehensible) in falling to
I'll the vacancy i'm its membership, TO
elect secretary, TO appoint judges, ana
% prepare and distribute ballots in the
manner prescribed by law, still, such
allure on the part OF said board should
TOT deprive the electors of Norfolk coun-
v OF the constitutional right 10 express
heir wishes by their ballots. Every re-
uirement necessary 10 the conducting or
n election was substantially compiled
With Voting places and the necessary
apparatus for voting was provided. judges
we're there 10 conduct the election. bal
DTS were provided which bore the i'm
rimatur OF regularity, and the electors
ad every right TO believe that the cleo
ion was regular and properly conducted. |
nd that that was the place for them TO
xpress their wishes as electors What
yer Of confusion there was in the stua-
on was injected by the action OF those ]
Tho contended that the judges did not
old over, and hence swore in others,
nd who claimed that the ballots used
Y the hold-over judges were not legal
nd hence had others printed. We be-
eve they were honest in their convic-
ons, but that they misconstrued the law.
is fair to presume that every man who
ist his ballot with the three citizens ,
worn in would have been permitted 10
lst them with the old judges had they
Dplied. There Is no evidence that any
Ialifed elector was denied the privilege {
voting True. IL was charged that
any were confused by the situation, and 4
II knowing which place was right 10 /
)te did not vote at all. But assuming I
lis to be true Though we do not think I
proved by the testimony. still. we do :
II think that the wishes of those who
d know what 10 do and did it. should =
set aside because few people became |
infused or were distrustful OF the cleo b
On officers. and hence refused TO vote. b
II Is needless for us. after having eX- {
essed the views above. TO say That we e
mot agree with contestant in his con- q
ntion that the seat should be declared -
cant and a new election ordered. The :
ost that the committee could possibly y
expected to do holding the views that d
q expressed above would be TO consider u
d count all the votes cast in said coun- 5,
whether cast at the one poll or the m
her: and If the committee should do Z,
Al we find. as stated above, that OF all :,
Q votes cast Newberne received l,sso =,
d Cole 919, or a clear majority for New ~
rne of 1,0I6. a
)ur conclusion Of the whole matter is W
AZ the Irregularities complained OF are hi
,lations of the directory provisions OF ID
, law. and no fraud being charged or r,
oven, they ought not TO vitlate the O,
elton. n,
our committee therefore recommend ne ne
adoption by the House of Delegates %
following resolutions: III
resolved. That j. h. Cole was not de
cted and is not entitled TO a seat In VI
, House of Delegates from Norfolk ga
lnty.
cted and is entitled to seat in the ba
use OF Delegates from Norfolk county. N'
submitted.
j. c. PARKER, Chairman. pc
WILLIAM @. WILLIAMS. re
w S. HALE.
CHARLES SMITH. ca
G.. G. GALLAHER IN
JAMES w. WILLIAMS. "a
GEORGE r. SNEAD Oh,
r. G.. TURPIN. tri
GEORGE w. SETTLE. oil
CHARLES r. BLAND. tai
ALEX. II. HOBBS.
WILLIAM HENRY MANN. otl
JOHN TAYLOR. III,
inl
The Pension Scandal. del
OHarper's Weekly) cal
is a hopeful sign that the politicians ~
waking up to the fact that the pen ''i ~
list is a scandal. For a dozen years -
more, every writer on democracy, here leo
in Europe, has treated the pension -
as an evidence against the efficacy ~, ui
honesty of our form of government. -