The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-09-30
been guilty OF frauds and Irregularities.
and have flagrantly violated the Banks


have denied the certificate"
Shortly after Major Sands concluded
the committee adjourned to meet at noon
to-day, when the Wendenburg- Throck-
morton case will be gone into. The
crowd broke up and made the best OF It's
way out. AS he left the room Mr. Brauer
1 declared that he would fight the case to
the bitter end, and that he stu expected
to win out.
Important Decision.
The decision, which, so far as can ne
asccrtained, was reached by vote OF
ten to three. or eleven TO two. cuts IN
more WAYS than one. The offenscs Oh
which It finds the nominee guilty is held
to be n violation Of the Barksdale law.
punishable with n fine Of $1,000 or I'M
prisonment in TALL for year. IN ms
light the matter Is subject Tor the con
sideration of the grand jury 70 Wh.eh
the committee will PROBABLY rnah" ~
nor. Of coma sort. -
Then, again II establishes prccedeii..
which. lust at this moment is OF Vasl
inportance and significant 1t indicales
that the committee will look upon treat.
ing during canvasses as vioia tlon Va
the law The wendenburg- ThrocRrhor'o i,
case will be fought out on this issue anu
HSr wend.nburg's friends and attorneys
have already admitted that he treated ms
friends TO drink good deal IheH
watched the Rrauer case anXlousiy lor
decision on this point, and last night some
of them looked upon the prospect OIL tl'e
Commemorative Attorney.elect as very
black one indeed. They were not mus
bit worried, and were preparing TO turn
out in force to witness tho events OF to-
day, when the case Will begin.
The Specification.
It Is reported that the discussion IN the
committee over the decision was very
stormy one. and that the minority are not
a little disgruntled at the result One OF
them was heard to say last night that he
viii resign from the committee, and that
he will not attend the meeting to-day.
The two specifications under which MI
Brauer was found guilty are as follows:
That or the - day OF July, 1903, SAID
". H. Brauer paid to L. D. Green,
voter in said county. at Bakers Precinct
the sum of $40 for his services in work.
Ing for said Brauers nomination In SAID
primary; and that again, on the - day
Of August, 1903, Mt Mrs. Bells store, IN
Fulton, said Brauer gave said Green 81
to be spent In treating voters to influence
them to support said Brauer at said pri-
mary.
That about one week before said pri-
mary said Brauer visited the saloon 'oi'
Washington Bottoms, at Thirtieth and +
Streets, near Hardin's Shop Precinct. and
treated to drinks and cigars several vot-
ers at said precinct, intending thereby to
Influence their votes.
Long Session.
The days work began about 10 A. NJ,
(. and continued until after I p. M. One
hour, from to 2 in the afternoon. was
given to dinner, but with this exception
the hearing continued uninterrupted
throughout the day. The attendance was
large, and continued so until the close.
The members OF tho committee present
throughout the day wereb as follows:
Messrs. T. c. Rufiin. chairman; e. S.
Michaels. Louis II. Meyer, w. X. Bache.
Joseph H. johnson. i. Ellis Jones. 7. f
Bagley, Myer Angle, ]. W. Taylor, ]. NJ.
Eanes and G. c. Gregory.
The Testimony
First on the list Of witnesses was Mr..
Michael Burger, voter of Hardtn's Shop
Precinct, whose testimony came under the
/ specification alleging that Brauer visited
tho saloon Of Washington Bottoms, at
Thirtieth and Streets, about week
before the election, and treated several
voters to driLks and cigars. intending
thereby TO influence votes.
The witness stated that on an after
noon some ten days before the primary
Brauer visited Bottoms saloon and offer
ed and gave drinks to several men, In
Guiding himself (Burger). Ed Griggs and
some others. Nearly every step Of the ties.
timony was fought by the defense An
effort was made by the petitioner to show
that Hugh Davis, a son-in-law. friend,
and adherent Of Brauer, worked in his be.
half, and with a view to furtherng his
interests In the canvass. visited Bottoms
saloon regularly hobnobbed with the vo-
tiers. treated to drinks and cigars and
talked Brauer The bone of contention
here was over the question of intent. 1t
was held by the defense that unless 1t
was clearly and individually shown that
Mr.. Davis had acted with the knowledge
and consent of Mr.. Brauer, tho evidence
concerning him could not be admitted.
Strong arguments by the counsel for the
petitioner awaited nothing. 1t was held
by Mr.. OFlaherty that the question IN
Wolved was psychological one. Intent
could be proved only by circumstances
and actions: the committee could hardly
expect the counsel for the prosecution
to attempt to say and show what was
happening in the mind OF Mr.. Brauer.
They could only indicate tho relationship
between the two men and their friend
ship. and then ndduce certain actions Of
Mr.. Davis which facts would have to he
taken by the committee and Judged for
what they were worth.
The objection Of the defense, however,
prevailed. The chair ruled, and the
chair was sustained. that nothing that
could not be Enthusiastically connected
with lhr. Brauer should be admitted
The testimony Of Mr.. Burger on this
point was thereupon stricken out. 1t
was to the effect that Brauer and Davis
came together to the saloon first to-
gether, and that thereafter Davis came
alone regularly to treat the crowd and
ask them to vote for Brauer. Afte,
the election Davis stopped coming
Another Fight
Another hot fight developed when II
H. Faircloth was placed upon the stand
He was to testify to the use Of money
by Brauer, but the instance of which he
was to tel! was not specified In thu
charges. The prosecution wished to pre-
sent this testimony under the clause il
Its; bill offering TO present charges II
addition to those specified But strong
objection was made by the defense.