The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-12-10
campaign expenses required ~ the

3Bnrksdale law.
4 Til. rtply5by the Commonwealth, to M.
Brynnts array Of facts was not very
Vigorous, ind probably Indicated my ~.
He argued, however, that the statutory
provisions III reference to the pnssas &c or
acts wns not rop,lgnnnt to tho Constiiltlui..
ton, aid, furthermore, that tho schedutl ie e
Of. The new Constitution (section w
specifically set forth that INC eStra ses-.
sion OF the Assembly. ut which the l3arks.l
dale law was passed, should be SID ~
1ect to $nll the limitations prescribed BY
this Constitution In reforenco to the
General Assembly. except us TO the 4 ln ~
tation upon tho period Of its session, qua = ~
ficnttons Of members, and us TO tho tlmn
ut which my Of It's acts shall ta ,e
.effect11a1n conclusion, no introduced me me
following decision OF The attorney -gerertll
upon the subject
Hon joseph ID, Willard, Richmond, Va.
Dear slr,-In reply TO your note Of tr-$
ul1iry Of the 9th Instant, I have the honor
to say;thnt iii my opinion IN act of tho
General Assembly, passed during the ex-
ira session Of 1902 03. which onlts to pre-
scribe $nt what It shall tnko effect Went
into effect upon tho list Of July 1908. N,
Section 10 Of the schedule takes all acts
OF the General Assembly at said extraor.
binary session out of the operation OF
time Of which such acts tnre effect. and
lenyea thcm to be controlled In that re.
rnrd by the will Of tho General Asscnl-
Div as EXPRESSED II, each act, or by tho
provisions Of the general law, virginia
Code Of 1851, section q.
Very truly yours. II
t 5153 yY1t.LlAM A. ANDERSON, #
R. iis. Acknowledgements.
a copy:
John 8. H. Egglcston. secretary,
After some further argument the court
announced that It held tho law TO DC
In effect, and would override tho motion
OF tho defense. Squire Thomas dlsseit-
cd from this ruling, agreeing With SEMI
tor Bryant III his contention.
The Bryant Case.
Tie Bryant case under tho warrant
charging the Senator with promising TO
nay IS to William Valentine With view
10 influencing his vote, wns thereupon
called, and tho witness named in the
Indictment was at once placed upon the
stand.
Valentino said that on September 3D.
The day of the primary, he was running
n surry between tho Soldiers Home ana
the polls. bringing down the old soldiers.
Mr.. Bryant rode with him to Andersonls
store where the two had drink. Inc
Senator puld for the treat and asked val
entino to do all he could In behalf OF ms
(Bryant's) candidacy for commemorative
attorney. Valentine who ngreed TO 90
this, had already voted for Bryant IN the
morning, and didn't exert himself partlc-
,,larly but asked tho soldiers. as he
brought them down. to vote for l3ryai1t.
He had no agreement with Bryant about
compensation for this work, but expected
TO get something out of 1t. That night.
after the polls, had been closed he went
to Bryant. The latter said he had run out
of cash, but would send Valentine q
letter tho next day. 1t would enclose
S. bill, and could be identified by cross
mark that would be on the corner OF ne 70
envelope. The letter never came, ana Val va!
cntine after going once to Bryants oliice
when he was out Of town, dropped ING Inc
mat tef.
,rhere was practically no cross-eNanlina-
ton. and Valentino left the stand. Senator
BRYANT then stood up and solemnly sWorc
that that he had never upon any occasion
paid or promised to pay 10 the Witness
IS or any other sum of money with We"
to influencing his vote. Then he sat down.
There was no argument. Commonwealth
Attorney: Sands expressed the opinion
| that under tho law and according 70 tne
! evidence there, WAS no case against W.T. r;
Bryant The magistrates concurrcd, hna
| the warrant was dismissed,
The Stunpf Case.
The second case to be called was that
| ofJoseph Stumpf, the Richmond business
| man. charged with dispensing FREQ drinks
| in tho interest Of the candidacy OF y.
Won NJ Rosenesk, for the House o1 Dele
j gates.
On behalf Of tho defense the attorneys,
| Mr. E l.. Ryan and Mr.. II. M. Smith
| Jr., promptly made u motion 70 Q''n 81
| the warrant the ground that the cilarse
| II conveyed did not constitute an oftense
! Thcy held In the main that the Ia"
| closing saloons, etc., applied to genera
! elections, but not to primaries; that every
| saloon in IIenrico was open on primary
| day. and that tho case of Mr.. Stumpt
| who gave drinks away. could not fe
! Isolated. and made an example OF wlthou'
any authority OF law. The Commonwealth
urged that Hcnrico was operating uhue'
l legalizcd primary plan designed Z
check the Irregularities to which refer
ence was made, without waiting for IN
closing argument by Mr.. smith. ~
magistrates announced that the motion L
nuash was ovcrruled, ana calleu TOE "
witnesses In the trial,
j IF your honors please" said Mr.. Sands
slowly, however dlsagreeable an arg'l
ment may be to the magistrates, the de
Tense has a right to be heard upon an;
motion 1t may properly bring before w
court
rho magistrates explained that the
meant no discourtesY to Mr. smith, bu
|, thought he was through,
"It I consulted my feelings. the az
torney said, IT should go no further
the argument but am G,, Representing ta M sg NJ
Then a curious thing happened-a &c
marlsable tribute TO the fGrnssc abil ,r,,
Of the brilliant criminal lawyer; IN
magistrates, he II Remembered had a
ready decided. But Mr. Smith made a
argument that Is considered III 5y w., man II
effnrt that twisted the magistrates nroun
and got them 70 thinking, He He read ga +, T.
t elementary principle Of law that M. no sta
y ute could be extended by Implication, 1; an !,
Q no no law made to apply to conditi {,
that did not exist at tho IT., time e. OF IL II
@ enactment Thtn he read the statutol
I law itself-framed in 1860, when the'