Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1901-10-03

Sous offered by the convention advocate
for revision of the constitution was tC
get rid Of fraudulent and corrupt practices
in elections throughout the State, is proc
conclusive that the opportunities for com
uniting frauds under the Aforesaid Act were
fully utilized by dishonest elections ofh
GERS in many sections of Virginia.
We will now stop considering the Act
which provided for voting on the question
of calling convention and see what was
the result of the vote on that question
The election was held on the fourth Thurs
day in May, 1900, and the convention
was declared carried by the pre-arranged
majority. When the returns were made
it was found that the possibilities for fraud
under the Act of March 9Th, 1906, had
been we'll understood and utilized by
trained ballot manipulators. The great
white sections of the State had declared
against the convention, while the returns
from the negro counties and cities, with the
exception of Norfolk, were for the conven'
ton. Then the Governor called the Leg
islature in extra session to provide for the
selection of delegates to the constitutional
convention. 1t was the same Legislature
that passed the vicious and fraudulent Act
of March 5, 1900; and it proceeded by an
Act approved February 10Th, 1901, to
order an election to be held on the fourth
Thursday in May, 1901, for electing dele
gates to the constitutional convention
The second paragraph of the preamble >ef
this Act reads as follows:
"Whereas the board of state canVassers
have certified that at said election large
majority of the qualified voters of this
State voted in favor of constitutional
convention, and their determination has
been communicated by the Governor to
this body, and it is now proper to provide
plans for the selection of delegates to sucll
convention for the converting of said del
egates and the organization of the said con-
ventlon, and for submitting the revised
and amended constitution to the people oil
the State of Virginia for ratification or re-
lection; therefore, etc."
This preamble is false and misleading To
such an extent that we must conclude its
purpose was to deceive the people. Ii
states that "the board of State canvassers
have certified that at said election large
majority of the qualified voters of this State
voted in favor of constitutional conven-
tion." No more fagrantly false recital
was ever made in an act of legislative
body. The returns show that at said cleo
ton not more than one.fifth of the quail
fed voters of Virginia voted IN favor of q
constitutional convention. The Act states
that ii provides "for submitting the re
vsed and amended constitution to the
people of the State of Virginia for ratitica-
ton or rejection" This declaration was
by the Democratic Legislature that had
provided the ways and means for voting
on the question of calling a convention
and then was providing the ways and
means for selecting delegates to the con-
vention. This was pledge, by legislative
enactment, of the Democratic party which
was ratified 10y the State Democratic con-
vention two months afterward, to submit
the revised and amended constitution to a
vote of the people of the State of Virginia
fos ratification or rejection.
The conduct of the Democratic mem.
bers of the constitutional convention and
the course pursued by party leaders and
newspapers in favor of submitting to re-
stricted electorate, or to proclaim the con-
stitution, justfes the conclusion that the
clause in the preamble of the Act of Feb
ruary Is, 1901, was intended to mislead
the voters and was fraudulent in purpose.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
Eighty-nine of the one hundred mem
bers of the Constitutional Convention are
Democrats. The Republicans in the State
had become so disheartened by the uni
formly fraudulent methods that had pre-
vailed for many years under the conduct
of election officers, they thought ii
useless to put up candidates in most
of the counties of the State. That frauds
would have been practiced in the usual
way, ifthe Republicans had run candidates,
is very apparent, though it was pretended
that the convention had been called pri-
marily to get rid of fraudulent elections.
The contested case of Treat VS.. Gregory,
which has beenspending in the convention
ever since it assembled, shows what would
have been done if the Republicans had
presented candidates in all the counties.
1t has been proved concluslvely that
Treat, the Republican candidate in Hano-