Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-02-19

| by successive deduction work out a min.
loity OF elz Tor contestant in place of the
proper plurality of 2.24s for the con-
| testee. A refutation of the claims made
IN these tables will necesstate a report
| from Table f. There are only two we'll
known questions in volved in these tabu.
lated statements" says the report
Namely-frst, can 623 votes. not cast
on the day of election. be counted for
the contestant under the provisions of
the election laws of Virginia. which laws
embody the principal features of the Aus
traiian ballot system? Second can
twenty-five precincts, most Of which are
admitted 20 be Democratic be totally re-
jected by this House, simply for the al
legged reason that the officers of election
did not belong TO different political
parties?"
mo contrary opinion" continues the
report, "can be cited from the judged
cases of the ordinary courts OF any of
the States of this Union This was a uni
form rule of the House of Representa-
tives until 1873, some time after the
adoption Of section 2O07, ct seq, Revised
Statutes of the United States adopted
May 81, 1870 This section was repealed
by act Of February 8, 1894. and whatever
influence it may have had Is hereby re-
moved"
RULE OF THE HOUSE.
The report then discusses the doctrine
laid down in Biddle and Richard vs..
Wing c. and f., 5Q. which goes to show
that it is only required to ascertain who
has the greatest number of legal votes
actually given at the election. The re-
port then cites a number of claims and
the action of the House of Repres anta-
tives. The minority submit that "as late
as Morris VS.. Handley. Forty-second Con-
gress, il was not even suggested that
votes not cast should be counted but it
was debated whether the evidence Of VIC
lence and intimidation was sufficient TO
cause the rejection of the poll. The first
time that votes not cast were ever count
ed by the House occurs In Niblack rs.
Walls, decided 1872. This case came up
from Florida in the midst of the violent
throes of Reconstruction, and after the
adoption of the r. S. l.. s.. 200. The
report then discusses that case at some
length, and after discussing a number
Of other cases decided refers to the Wad
dill VS.. Wise case. in the Fifty-irst Con-
gress.
The minority discusses in detail the
difference between the contest against
McKenney and the present contest, end
quotes very fully from the record.
The report then goes on to review the
record in the Thorp VS.. Epes case, which |
was made public last January.
THE VOTE IN PETERSBURG.
In the First Ward of the city Of Peters
burg Epes had a plurality of H. G. A. |
Clark. witness for contestant did not |
testify to a single illegal or fraudulent |
act of the election officers. X. T. Nc
Mann. witness for contestant. said he |
knew OF nothing crooked. George h.
witness for contestant. said |
he was in the house all day and knew
nothing of the acts of election officers
Beck and Sheffield judges of election
testified that the election was perfectly |
fair. etc. In the Second Ward, Epes had
, plurality of 113. The report Of the ma
lority gives no valid reasons for throw
ng out this precinct. Not single act
Of fraud is testified TO. In the Third
Ward of the city of Petersburg Epess
was 222 No fraud or illegality
was even alleged. In the Fourth Ward
E,pes's plurality was 2l3. The only ir-
-eeularitv that is complained OF was
hat election officers held conference with
Democratic officials. No fraudulent act
vas complained Of. In the Fifth and
sixth wares, the report goes on to prove
nat Epes's plurality was fair The plu-
atty OF Epes In the city Of Petersburg
vas ssS That plurality is thrown aside
" the majority Of the committee. on the
ole ground that the election officers were
democrats.
The report then continues: ITO throw
ant ali the precincts OF the city OF
'etersburg upon such evidence as can De
roved i'm the record. or has been ao-
anced I'm the report of the majority
|
mud be against all law and all prece-
ant We conceive that 10 throw cut
recincts. II is necessary that some fraud
> iliegaIity shall be proven. If the cleo
on was fairly conducted and the judges
"a their duty, the fact that they were
II NJ one political party will not justify
he throwing out of any precinct. NC
rearv on Elections. section l92; Paine
n Elections, section S79. The minority
therefore. satisfied that these pre-
ncts cannot and will not be rejected by
,e uouse. Thorp's plurality brought
own 1s9 Epes's plurality in the city OF
e.ersbure is eSS, which gives Epes piu-
llity Of 64s."
COUNTRY VOTE.
The minority report goes through the
ecincts I'm Lunenburg county rejected
/, the majority report, showing that
nes,s pluralities were fair. The deposit
ms are here very fully reproduced.
fer I,unenburg, the counties or Motto ,
av and Prince Edward are taken up,
"a nroved TO be all right for Epes
,e Iawrenceville Precinct-the only pre-
net I'm Brunswick county assailed on
count of the politics and qualifications
the Judges of eection-was next as .
ssed. Even In this instance the judge
question Is admitted by the contestant .
he n Republican, but the contestant IN
rs that he could not read ana couid
lie only his name. This statement Is
nnorted by the testimony OF single
mess. the Republican county chair-
an and since the election, the postmas-
. OF Iawrenceville. The contestee IN
,duced two witnesses, whose testimony
owed the Judge in question TO be one
the strongest Republicans known, OF
I'D character. able to read ana write o
4 qualified 10 act as judge OF election.
,oarch and Ross precincts are next d
zen m Here the minority concede a
iuction of forty from Eres The ques-
y of disputes about Dinwiddie and
'yhatan counties Is discussed. Then
nee George county. Lees Mil Pre- :
81 and lastly. Sussex county, Wake
~ 49, @~-~