The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-10-10
CARD FROM MR.. PARKER
He Makes Reply - Mr.. Perkins and
Discusses the Herr;co Case.

DISCUSSES lIle T1e'I'SC OuSC'
Editor of Tho Times Dispatch:
sir.-I have read with much surprise
the letter from Mr.. George Perkins, pub
lshed in your issue of yesterday, ana
fully agree with your editorial comment
that the letter is more q criticism OF the
state Central Committee than OF The
Times Dispatch report. which he starts
out to criticlse.
How Mr.. Perkins can say that he or
his client was not fairly treated by the
committee passes my comprehension. we
expected Mr.. Perkins to be partisan; Wo
did not expect him TO be unjust. lie
must know that the party rule which he
quoted, giving the right of appeal to the
State Central Committee. simply means
that every aggreved party might take
his case to the Central Committee but
II does not mean that the Central Com
mittee shall hear his case de novo or
that it shall rcnear 1t at all II. upon MS
own presentation of his case. the COM
mittee Is of opinion that he has no Just
ground for appeal.
The law says that In dispute over
the title to land the party nEErieVed by
the decision OF the lower court may ap-
peal but when he goes to the appellate
court he presents his grievance In his
own way, and upon his own statement
of facts. without contradiction from the
opposing party, the court considers ms
case from his own standpoint; ana II II
appears from that statement that there
is probable error in the court below. IL
reviews the case; but If 1t appears that
the court below was plainly right, the
court will refuse to review the case ana
will dismiss hts petition.
This was the course pursued by the
committee and no unprecedented man
can deny its fairness.
Mr.. Perkins made a statement for his
client. 1t was clear and full. He stated
his legal points. the evidence that was
before the county committee. and his
construction OF the law as applied to
the facts. The opposing side was not
heard, and the committee acted solely
on Mr.. Perkins statement (notwlthstanu.
irg Mr. Perkins uncallcd for ins'nuatlon
. that the committee had gotten inforrra-
ton on the outside upon which 1t acted,
which insinuation I. as one who was
on that occasion on the committee. en-
rhatically resent, and upon his state
ment the committee said that. admitting
every statement Of fact made by MT.
Perkins to be true, that still we could
600 no error in the decision of the county
committee, and that we would therefore
decline to review the case. rs the decl-
sion Of the county committee. according
to Mr.. Perkins own statement was
correct.
Could anything be fairer?
OF course We did not agree with Mr..
Perkins conclusions, else we would have
reversed the county committee. But we
simply said to him: mfr. Perkins ad-
hitting all you say to be true, we do not
think that the agreement between McGeo
and Beal was violation Of either tho
Barksdale law or of section 1G6 of the
Code, and we do not think the irregu-
larities which you complain of at TWO
precincts on the day of the primary wero
such Irregularities as vttiate tho prl-
mary. and hence there Is no possible
error to review
The committee may have been wrong
in its Judgment. but I submit that this
body Of non-partrsnn men (and they
were non-partisan, notwithstanding Mr..
Perkins insinuations), composed largely
of lawyers. was in better position to
Judge fairly than was Mr. Perkins, the
attorney for the contestant and his partl-
san representative In a bitter political
| fight.
Now as to the Henrrco case. The com
mittee decided that the mere fact that
the primary election law passed for Hem
! rico by the General Assembly gave that
committee the power to prescribe rules
governing the primary. did not give them
| the power to make themselves tho solo
arbiters OF any contest that might arise
without a right OF appeal to higher au-
thority, but that the Henrico primary
| law in no sense interfercd with the right
of appeal to tho State Committee under
! tho party law.
! The committee was unanimous In that
view, notwithstanding the fact, as ! be-
! lievc that every member OF 1T would have
| been glad OF any excuse to relieve HIM
| self OF hearing tho case. The committee
/, was non partisan, and the statement said
to have been made by some of tho Hen
! rico County Committee. that the whole
! thing was fixed before the State Com
mlttce met, is absolutely untrue. If the
| State Committee did not have the right
to hear an appeal In that case, 1t does
| not have 1t In any case.
| We heard the statement Of counsel for
| contestant. They set up several techni-
cal points which tho committee did not
regard but they charged that Mr.. Brauer
! had been convicted of violations OF the
! Barksdale law which the evidence did
not sustain. There was no way to de-
eide whether this was true or not, ex-