The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-03-20
RICHMOND VA. SUNDAY, MARCH 20. 1898

Precinct Clay ward, where regular tick
cts were i'm possession. OF parties In the
store OF Kelly 4 Ford, corner Main and
short streets. and that these tickets were
marked for or by voters in the above
mentioned store, and In rear OF the bar
Der 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 polling place. That ballots is
sued from First Precinct Clay Ward were
distributed and marked for and by voters
on Gary street between Beach and Re-
servolr streets. some two or three hun
dred wards from said First Precinct.
That numerous voters were allowed to
take their ballots to other points than
within the booths, and altogether outside
of the forty foot limit at First Precinct
CLAY Ward and mark them. this irregu-
larity occurred at the Second and Third
Precincts Of jefferson Ward, and your
petltioner believes. and therefore charges,
that the same irregularity occurred at
many other precincts. all of ,,hich was
contrary to the plan prescribed by your
committee.
AIJOWFD IN POLLING PLACE.
Your petitioner further states that Mr..
w. o. Steger, a deputy under Mr.. r. b.
Munford. the present Commissioner OF
Revenue. and q candidate for the noml-
nation I'm 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 ana
that he handled ballots voted IN the eiec-
tion held on the 18th day OF March 1888;
all Of which was Illegal ana improper anu
without authority or permission from the
sunerintendent OF Clay Ward, the only
constituted authority that could permit
his presence i'm the polling place during
tho count OF the votes, according 10 your
man made as it was TO secure a fair
election. and such permission by whom
eoeycr given was calculated TO throw great
: dtsorsdit ON the returns from this pre-
cinct L..
your potitioner further states that dur
| inc the dav OF March 18th, ne VISITED the
second Precinct of Jefferson Ward ana
e,y Air Harvey Davis, one Of Mr.. X. j..
Np,nford's deputies, upstairs in the Ola
Market Hall and within six or eight rect
Of tho table from which the officers were
giving out ballots and within me same
! distance Of the booths in whlah NV'ers
prepared their ballots, ana tnat salu
! Davis had been there and remained 'here
! for about six hours soliciting votes lor
Mr II. B. Munford, all III violation Vi 'n7
I,u, aud vour plan" This your petit
tloner respectively suggests was not @ Oe'-
| culated To inspire confidence In the pro-
| ,rioty and carefuness Of the officers OF
! said precinct -....,.,,
| cgFICER INCAPIdITATED.
your netitioner further represents that
! during The count OF ballots cast in First
| Precinct Monroe ward, one of the sworn
! officers I'm said precinct was physically
| lncapacitated TO perform any OF his du-
| ties. this suggests the idea that there
was one party either calling names from
| the ballots or tallying, who was MOI a
sworn officer. and this is a violation Oh
J the law and your plan
Further. your petitioner begs 20 assert
that the great number Of ballots cast ana
1 the large number Of candidates voted Tor
| on the 18th day Of this month, did entail
| an excessive amount Of work on the gen
| tlemen acting as officers at the different
| precircts not only from o'clock \. VI.
| 10 O'Clock L. NJ. on the 18th, but III
! many OF them during the entire night OF
/ the 18TH. and In some OF them until or .
| o'clock on the afternoon OF Marcn loth'
! and he AYERS In all good faith that on ac-
/ count Of physical and mental exhaustion
mistakes were made which would mate
! rally alter the vote as returned Ior the
! candidates of this Office In favor Of your
petitioner. This idea the more strongly
| impresses your petitioner in connection
] with First Precinct Clay Ward, tecause
of the great length of time consumed
there in making the count, and the
/ further fact that Mr.. u. c. Richardson
| the candidate for commemorative At
/ torney. and without opposition, lacked
only eight votes of receiving the entire
vote reported cast in Fifth Precinct Clay
! Ward. only two IN Fourth Precinct none
| I'm the Third Precinct, and only I've IN
| the Second Precinct, while his vote Tell
| short one hundred and nine In First Pre-
! cinct CLAY Ward. This fact gives strong
indication Of error IN this precinct Tor
| another candidate than those for Com
! missioner of Revenue
DELAYED RETURNS
In consideration OF the foregoing facts
ana the further fact that hundreds Of oui
! good citizens. representing every class
| and section OF our city. have insisted ina
/ the close margin of fifty, arrived at only
after several Of the precincts have re-
! quired from twelve to eighteen hours II
! which 10 make their returns TO your com
| mittee. after the polls had closed, EN-
/ phasizes 10 their minds the fact tha'
! errors have been made. This conclusion
| vour petitioner respectfully submits has
| taken possession OF his mind also. l
| therefore. in accordance with Section
No. Is OF the plan adopted by your com
| mittee for the government Of the election
| held on the 18th day Of March. 1895, re-
| spectfullv file this written demand fol
! a recount Of all the ballots cast in said
election. at an the voting precincts in tho
| city of Richmond for the several candi-
dates for Commissioner of Revenue anc
! an examination of all ballots thrown ou
| at every precinct by the election officers
| for any cause.
And your petitioner respectfully pray: