The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1900-05-17
(The Raleigh Morning Post.O

think about his contest just as l do
They say that Crawford ought to
want Pearson 10 be seated because it
means sweep for Crawford next
November. They think it is worse
than that. 1t means the loss to us
of many seats in the Legislature.
What is the use of our making the
great issue as to honesty in elections
if our own party should perpetrate
such fraud as this? Why, Just
think of it: The whole vote of the
city of Asheville is to be flung into
the ditch because colored man was
arrested for perjury committed dur
ing the contest, long after the cleo
ton! Why not throw out the whole
vote of Buncombe county? And as
to that, why not all the Democratic
voters in the district? Every voter
in the precinct Of South Waynesville
is to be disfranchised on the excuse
that those of them who were newly
registered were registered three or
four hundred feet from the spot where
the polls were held, everybody hav-
ing fair chance to register and no.
body losing his vote and nobody de-
frauded or prejudiced by the failure
to have the books on the very spot
where the polls were held. And as
for the great body of those registered
in previous years, no irregularity
eveu charged! And with this sort of
a record upon us, we are to 60 around
ranting about Democratic fraud!
IAN ounce of civet, good apothe-
cary, to sweeten the stink!
The only point of law that reaches
and is worth considering in Pearson's
case is this: He says that the Demo-
cratic Senate of 1899, in order to un-
seat Republicans and Populists, re-
jected the precinct of Montezuma in
Mitchell county because the registrar
did not keep open his books at the
time and place required by law. Now,
says Pearson, the Democrats made
this precedent. Let the National
House stick to it. Then the precincts
of South Waynesville in Haywood and
Marble in Cherokee must be rejected.
By rejecting these precincts Pearson
gets a net gain of 215 votes. This
would lack only four of electing him.
These four can be got by finding that
Crawford bought them. Perish the
thought that Pearson would buy!
Now the fact of a registrar booking
voters at a time and place different
from that fixed by law would never
vitiate the entire poll, nor even the
particular votes thus improperly
'booked'-if the statute is merely
directory as to the time and place.
In the absence of fraud the votes
would be counted. This is the law
as the courts have often held. But
Pearson can plausibly-perhaps cor
rectly-contend that our act of 1895
is mandatory SIS to the time and place
of registration because it uses mega
tive words prohibiting registration at
any other time or any other place.
The House committee Mr.. Driscol, of
New York, Republican, and all the
Democrats dissenting) takes this
view. 1t is technical. There is no
merit in it. AS to Pearson, it shows
him up as trying to get himself IN by
disfranchising honest voters.
''But as dry law the point makes
perhaps colorado contention. AS
put by Pearson's counsel, it is that at
these precincts all the VOTERS were
unlawfully registered and all of them
must be re jected-not on the idea of
rejecting the poll or return, but of
rejecting the individual voters be-
cause each and every one of them
voted without being lawfully regis
tered. Now right here the committee
has made a monstrous mistake. The
record does not show, nor is it, | am
informed, fact, that there was a
NEW REGISTRATION in any of these
three precints. Under our acts of
1895 and 1897 no new registration
was required except in special cases
| when ordered by the county authori-
ties.
at appears affirmatively by the
record, page PIP, that at South Way
nesville they only registered the new
voters. Ali the rest were already
registered under the registration OF
1896. So Pearson's point utterly fails.
The bad registration only goes to
/ tHcSe particular SOtcTS "uO "cIc uIi-
lawfully registered. The election
was held, regular in form; the re-
turns were regularly made. Under
the general unwritten law all pre-
sumptions are in favor of their valid
ity, and by the express terms of oul
acts Of 1895, section II. the registra
tion book is presumptive evidence o.
its regularity and its rightfulness
1t was incumbent on the contestant
to show the number of votes thai
were unlawfully registered and t.
show that they voted against him
He shows nothing of the sort. Hs
simply shows that some voters-per
haps small fraction of the total
were improperly registered. By thi:
he gets the committee to think tha
ALL the voters in the precinct wer'
unlawfully registered; whereas th'
truth is, that only an insignifcan
number were unlawfully registered
and, so far as the evidence goes, al
of THEM may have voted for Pear
son. The committee have simpl,
been misled as to the facts. Thes
competent and honest lawyers woul'
not have signed the majority repor
if they had understood the facts il
the record"
Commenting on the above edito
rally the Post says:
Gov. Russell has been a consistent