Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1900-06-07
THURSDAY, JUNE, Z, 1900.
WHAT KIND OF VICTORY ?

the Virginia Democracy at the election
held OIL the oath ult., when a vote was
taken to decide whether convention
should be held to adopt new Constitu'
ton. In discussing this question, we
should consider the means employed to
secure the victory and the end that is be-
ing sought. The means and the methods
used by the Democracy to obtain favor
able vote or count were unfair, deceptive,
and in many instances fraudulent. This
being true, the ends that are to be attain
ed cannot be otherwise than of the same
character.
The determination of the Democracy to
accomplish its purpose by foul means was
demonstrated at the beginning. 1t was
never their intention or desire to have the
people of Virginia pass fairly or intelligent
ly upon the question. The very legislative
Act which provided for holding the elec-
ton was not only partisan in every feature
but disgracefully unfair and dishonest
The Act was unfair because it did not be-
come law until the 9Th of March, 1900,
thus giving only eighty'one days for the
people to be notified of the election and to
inform themselves upon one of the most
important questions that had ever been
presented to them. 1t also provided that
the ballots to be used should be furnished
by the respective electoral boards of the
counties and cities. These boards are all
partisan, and they, and the printers who
print the ballots only know how they ap'
pear when printed. One of the most vicious
features of the Act is that wherein it was
provided that the ballots should be print
ed with the words "For Constitutional
Convention" thereon, and providing none
with the words "Against Constitutional
Convention" This gave an unequal
privilege and great advantage to the cleo
tors who favored convention. This
vicious feature was intensified by another
section Of the Act which provides that; "a
ballot deposited with the words for a con-
stitutional convention printed thereon
shall be a vote for a convention, and bal
lot deposited with the words for a consti-
tutional convention erased or stricken out
shall be a vote against a convention"
Was there ever more outrageously unfair
provision made, and could the trainers of
such law have been otherwise than dis
honest in purpose? They gave to the elector
who favored convention ready.prepared
ballot, while to the voter who was against
a convention they furnished no prepared
ballot; but forced him to take the one pre-
pared for another purpose, and, by eras-
ing or scratching, put it into a certain
shape to make it count against a conven-
ton. Thus he had to taKe his chances of
losing bis vote from making some improp-
er mark on the ballot and giving dishonest
election officers the opportunity to throw
it out as a mutilated ballot. 1t was made
still more vicious in that it destroyed the
secrecy of the ballot. The voter who
wished to vote for the convention was not
required to go into the booth, as bis ballot
was already "fixed" for him; but the voter
who wished to vote against the convention
had to 90 into the booth and prepare his
ballot. If an iliterate voter wanted to
vote against the convention, he had to call
upon one Of the partisan judges to help
him prepare bis ballot and run the risk Of
being cheated out Of his vote. These pro-
visions of the Act are so unfair and un-
equal that they raise a question as to the
constitutionality of the law. The Consti-
tuition of the United States says: mo
State shall make or enforce any law which
shall sbridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States"
We think a careful study of the Act, the
foundation upon which the election was
held, will convince any one that it is cor
rupt, partisan, and unfair. 1t was shaped
so as to give undue advantage to those
who we're the advocates of convention,
and prevent full and fair expression OF
popular sentiment on the question. If
the foundation is corrupt and dishonest,
what about the superstructure
If a careful study be made of the results
of the election in the different sections Of
the State, it will be seen that the victory
over which the Democratic press has been
pretending to be jubilant was not fairly
won. and is not an honest expression Of
sentiment so far as the people are concern
ed. Considerably less than one.half ofthe
usual vote was polled, showing that the
people had not been given sufficient no.
tice, or proving beyond doubt that the
strong sentiment in favor Of changing the
Constitution, which the Democratic press
had been proclsiming, did not exist An
analysis of the vote will also show that the
great white sections Of the State opposed
IL ILL