The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-03-22
THE VOTE TO
Be REC0UNTED.
So Decided by the City
Committee.
ONLY SIX NEGATIVES.
Twenty Members Were in Favor of
the Proposition.
THE WORK WILL BEGIN TONIGHT
Mr III. NJ. Smith, Jr., Represented Mr.
Munford and Dir. Wendenburg
Appeared for Mr.. Hawkins-A
Personal Difficulty Outside
OF the Meeting - New
Members Elected.

ulSbl utglutu ~ Ie-tOuhb Nho N"'NS N'9N
for Commissioner OF the Revenue. Six
members voted against the proposition
and twenty for it.
The committee met at the Powhatan
Club at o'clock. Many politicians and
others interested In the outcome Of the
contest were on hand The meeting was
secret one. Newspaper reporters were
not admitted After the committee had
been called to order the first thing done
was to read the petition of Mr. Hawkins,
which was printed in The Times Sunday.
Then, the question of giving a hearing
to Messrs. Munford, Hawkins and Noble.
or their representatives, came up for dis
cussion. 1t was decided to hear all par
ties interested.
Mr.. Munford was present with Messrs.
II. NJ Smith, Jr.. and b. B. Munford as
counsel. Mr.. Hawkins was there with
Mr.. L. O. Wendenburg, as his attorney.
MIR. +. NJ. Noble was on hand without
counsel.
MR.. WENDENBURG OPENS.
The three candidates and their counsel
were admitted into the committees room.
Mr.. Wendenburg opened. He used Mr..
Hawkins petition as the text OF his re-
marks. He contended tnat az Mr.. Mum
ford had not answered the petition II was
a practical admission that the facts re-
lated were true.
Mr. Wendenburg did not charge fraud
against any one. He laid great stress
upon the fact that while the committees
plan had been drawn with great care and
with view OF protecting the interests Of
all candidates the spirit ana the Letter Of
II had been violated n several WAYS.
The tickets had not been projected end
guarded In some Of the precincts as they
should have been.
The apparent discrepancy in the total
vote east and the aggregate Of the bal
lots cast for Commissioner OF the Revenue
was commented on. In view OF the fact
that there were Isl votes for Commission
er rejected and Mr. Munford had only 50
plurality OF the votes returned, Mr.. Wen
denburg thought n recount should be
had. He argued that men after long
hours Of work might naturally make cler-
zeal errors and these might have entirely
changed the result.
MIR. SMITHS REPLY.
Mr.. Smith, who spoke for Mr.. Munford.
In replying to Mr.. Wendenburg. said Mr..
II
any charge of fraud should be made But
as no improper conduct on the part OF
the election officers had been alleged, and
as not even the requirements OF the
plan as 90 contests had been complied
with. he could ses no reason nor excuse
for ordering a recount
with reference 10 the point raised that
the aggregate Of the votes for Commits
sioner was less than the total Of th3 bal
lots cast by lsl. Mr.. Smith called atten-
ton to the fact that the following votes
for other Offices were unaccounted for.
Mayor ........ ........ ........ .......... lJo
Commemorative Attorney ............ lI2
Auditor ........ ........ .,...... ...'.... Zol
city Collector ........ ..s..... ''''.s.''' 80
Sheriff ........ ........ .......- '......... -V3
High Constable Observation-Disclosures. 33S
City Sergeant ........ ........ .......'.. lio
He reminded the committee that Mr..
d. c. Richardson ran behind 109 I'm First
clay: that at Fourth Jefferson the aggre-
gate vote for High Constable ran behind
! IA; at Second Madison, the combined
| vote for City Collector was $50 less than
the total cast and at Second Clay the
vote for Auditor was 70 less than the
total.
Mr.. Smith said the plan provided that
the committee should be satisfied that
| there were good grounds for recount
and he argued that II had not been set
| out in the petition that there were any
such good grounds.
Mr.. Noble had very little TO say and did
not advocate either side OF the propo-
] siiion. He jocularly remarked that he
/ thought Il would be better TO have the
primary over.
AFFIDAVITS READ.
Messrs w. o. steger and Harvey L.
Davis. deputies of Mr. Munford having
been referred TO In Mr.. Hawkins petit
tion as having heen inside OF the polling
| places OF First Clay and Second Jefferson
I during the counting OF the votes sub
mitted affidavts.
Mr.. Steger in his affidavit states that
| about 2 o'clock on the morning OF the
18th. ne was requested hv Mr.. Muscoe
! Clazebrook 10 go 10 the First Precinct of
! Clav Ward 10 tale the place OF his SON
in-aw Mr. c. Walton Saunders who mao
been designated as one Of the outsiders
10 watch the count Of ballots "as a re-
preventative OF some OF the parties inter
| ested and who was forced 10 leave the
| city NJ o'clock that morning on busl-
mess trip: that about o'clock as afore-
| said with the consent OF the officers OF
| election ne took Mr. Saunders place and
/ received from MIR. Saunders his small
memorandum book showing the vote for
Mayor and Commissioner or the Revenue
those being the two offices In which Mr.
Saunders was interested. that from
! o'clock that night until 10 o'clock the
| morning OF the 10th he watched the count
| for the general Offices and during thai
time did not put his hands upon single
| ballot"
The count for the general offices being
anished az about 10 o'clock. Mr.. Steger
was about 20 leave but az the urgen'
solicitation OF the election officers he re-
mained 10 assist them I'm counting the
ballots for candidates for the Common
! Council. justices of the teace and mem
ters OF the city Democratic Committee
lie bears cheerful testimony 70 tho faith
| full honest and accurate work OF the
election officers He states that he wa-
at First Clay during most OF the day
working In the interest OF Mr.. Munford
and says Mr.. Writ f. Taylor and others
were there for Mr. Hawkins. II if true
ballots were prepared outside or the
booths, but this was done TO facilitate