The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-10-07
The AIbemarIe Contest.

Editor of The Times Dispatch:
Sir,-In the report of tho proceedings
before the Democratic Committee on Fri
day last, viii CHI report appears In your
issue Of Saturday, the Sd of October, the
Albemarle contest VIZ: the contest be-
tween Messrs. Garth and MCGEE, Is re-
ferred to, and the account OF the matter
as 1t appeared before the committee. Is
attempted. The account, according to my
recollection is inaccurate, and, aH am
specially mentioned as having made the
statement of Mr. Garths case. beg leave
to give my version Of the occurrence.
It is true that Mr.. Garth's counsel were
allowed few minutes within which to
present the grounds of Mr.. Garth's appeal.
and 1t is true that did make the state
ment. 1t Is also true. mot referred to in
your reporD, that I expressed to the
committee our surprise at the ruling
made, inasmuch as we thought ourselves
entitled to an appeal as matter of
right under the Democratic rules regu-
lating primaries.
But the report Is no tcorrect when 1t
says that the contract between Messrs.
MCGEE and Beal was claimed to be chief
ly Objectionable because 1t was hostile
to the law forbidding the farming Of
offices. l stated distinctly that Mr.. Garth
wiz. First that the contract between
| Messrs. MCGEE and Beal whereby the
| latter agreed to withdraw as n candidate,
| and did withdraw In Mr.. >McGee's favor
| In consideration of part of the profits
| OF the office. was plain violation OF the
Barksdale law. and vitiated Mr.. McGee's
nomination. Second that said contract
was also antagonistic to the law rs laid
down In the Code of 1887, section 1865.
| Third, that the improper distribution and
handling of ballots at two precincts was
plain violation of the primary plan for
mulated by our County Committee.
Tho chief point relied on, II, indeed,
either was made more prominent than
the others, was that the Barksdale law
had been clearly and positively broken
| The committee refused to give us q
hearing at all. No evidence was read
no record wa misunderstanding was
done except barely to permit US to state
tho grounds of our appeal and Their
to decide that we had no case This IN tn
face OF the fact that. II tho committee
knew our case they did not get thei'
knowledge from us, the only persons WHIT
could properly convey such knowledge
and In face of the law az laid down II
the resolution of this Identical commit
tee, which is In these words (See. page
of the pamphlet containing the resolution
and sent me By Chairman Ellyson).
County and City Committees shall have
the directio nand regulation Of prlmarie!
held for the nomination of candidates
for the House of Delegates, county ant
city offices, respectively, and shall de
eide contests subject to the right OF ap
peal to the State Central Committee.
AS the committee refused to hea
us on the merits after our state
mont Of the grounds of appeal. 1t must
, of course have gone on the idea thai
admitting our statement to be true, W
had no case. Now our statement wa
, that the Barksdale law had been violated
, section l66 of the Code had been broker
, and that such gross irregularities ha
occurred at some of the precincts as I
nuilfy the primary AT those precincts
: Tho truth OF these statements az. q