Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1902-12-10
THE CONTEST CASE,
LAMBETH AND BIBD v. WHITE
HEARD AND WOODWARD ARGUED.
WILL EE LONG AND TEDIOUS.
Each Side is to Have Four Hours
the Time Yesterday Taken Up With
Charges of Fraud in Various
Forms.
Forms.

Charges of Fraud In various
Forms,
The House Committee on Privileges and
Elections yesterday afternoon at o'clock
began an eight-hours consideration Of
the contested election case of Lambeth
and Bibb VS.. Whitehead and Woodward
from Norfolk city. Adjournment was had
a few minutes before Z o'clock until this
morning when argument will be resumed
and continued until the House meets at
noon, and again In the afternoon, at
which time conclusion is expected to be
reached.
BY agreement between the committee
and counsel for contestants and contes-
tees four hours were given to each side
for argument and DR.. Robert W. A1allet,
of Norfolk, attorney for the contestants,
opened the arguments, announcing that
he would speak an hour and half at
that sitting and conclude his argument
this morning in an hour. thus leaving
to his colleague, Mr.. James E. Heath, Jr.,
an hour and a half for the closing argu-
ment.
When the committee first convened
Messrs. George Pitcher and Thomas J.
Randolph, counsel for the contestees. ap-
peared before the committee and raised
the question of jurisdiction. They then
executive session to settle the issue
raised. The point made by the contestee's
counsel was that the General Assembly
which referred this contest to the COM
mittee was officially dead, having expired
when 1t adjourned sine die without action
on the case referred to it by the House.
The committee argued this question
among themselves in executive session for
some time and finally decided to lear the
case, believing without fully investigating
the questions raised that it had juris-
diction to act in the matter. In the COM
mittee Mr.. Cumming, of Hampton, made
a strong argument against the jurlsdlc-
ton Of the committee, taking the ground
that the present General Assembly. while
really the same that convened in Decem-
Der, 1901, Is not technically and legally the
same. MIR. Cumming made strong
speech for his contention, while Messrs
C., Conway Baker and George c. Cabell,
Jr.. spoke ably and forcefully in favor of
the opposite view. The committee finally
decided that it had jurisdiction. and the
doors were thrown open and the DEBATE
begun. after the time had been agreed
upon by the lawyers and the committee.
Hon Robert w. Mallet. an ex-mernper
of the House, opened the argument III be-
half Of the contestants, IS. Lambeth.
Jr and W. Lindsay Bibb. In opening
his speech. Mr. Mallet explained that any
frauds charged were not imputed to the
contestees themselves, but to their SUP
porters, and whether with or without
their knowledge, they We're the oeneh-
Charles.
plunsing into the argument of the case,
Mr.. Mallet contended that there had been
gross frauds in the election Of various
kinds of which contestces were the Ecne-
ficiaries He charged that In the Fifth
Ward, where the contestants we're strong,
there was great delay in opening the
polls, and that the vote was polled so
slowly, owing to dilatory methods. that
his clients suffered in their inability 70
get in their vote r their stronghold.
He further contended, that II: the Sec
ond Ward, second precinct, where contes-
tarts were strong, clerk of electlon had
taken twenty-five Lambeth and Bibb ball
lots and substituted twenty-five White
head and Woodward ballots in their stead.
This charge, he said, was substantlated
by the statement of one Of the judges.
In the second precinct Of the Sixth
Ward, he said, where the contestants
kept tally by means Of duplicate BALLOT
boxes. the vote in the official ballot boxes
heavily exceeded that in the duplicate
boxes He charged that in the Fourth
Ward which was almost solid for Hoge,
Woodward and Whitehead, these re-
ceived 8-S votes, and Lambeth and Bibb
but thirteen. In the other precincts Of
this ward, he said. contestees received
406 votes and contestants but =.
NIr. Mallet then announced his request
that the committee threw out the votes
of the second precinct Of the First Ward.
and that of he second precinct of the
Fourth Ward, by reason of gross frauds
therein.
He took up the second precinct OF the
First Ward in detail, tending to show that
in the first precinct the poll book was
padded by the addition of 142 names and
that in the second precinct sixty-slx
names had been unlawfully added to the
voting lists: He introduced testimony
to show that snme Of those whose names
were on the books in the two precincts
were dead men, and that others had
voted twice; that men had been voted
whose names were not on the books, or
who made affidavit that they did not vote.
He charged that negro voters had been
bribed by Republican leaders Of the ward
to vote for Whitehead and Woodward,
and detailed from the record III the case
how 1t was done, as the contestants al
lege. The negroes, he contended, were
required to bring back to the Republican
leader slip and receive his money for
the vote.
Mr.. Mallet claimed that Lambeth and
Bibb were the regular nominees and that
Messrs Whitehead and Woodward were
boilers, and that their friends made a
deal with Republicans by means of which
their election was secured.
Mr. Mallet announced this morning he
would take UP in the same manner as
Yesterday a detailed discussion of the
vote Of the second precinct of the Fourth
Ward, where he alleges glazing frauds.
He will DO followed by Mr.. Randolph
or Mr.. Pitcher. of counsel for the con-
testantS.