The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-10-01

and neither of the two Is found 70 ne
entitled" then a new election VIII pc
ordered. In this election Mr.. Brauer, MIN
self, as well as Mr. Hechler and Mf.
Todd. may run II he sees fit
The Brauer Case.
Throughout the city yesterday one OF
Tho chief tt3ies OF discussion was the
decision or The committee denying the
certificate OF election to Mr. Brauer, the
nom,ner$ Not n little interest was mani
tested. and the matter was quite thor
ouehly discussed on all Its sides.
The attorneys for Mr.. Brauer ana the
nominee himself are not a little uis-
4s,ntled as a result oil tne ac.,on u III III
committee. Mr.. Brhuer declines 70 ta,k
other than to state that he will fsht
the case to the bitter end. He wants TO
know how the committee can take ,he
certificate from him for treating ana give
one to wcndenburg when he was chargeo
with doing the same thing ms a'torness
declare that the matter VIII be fought
d,tcb 70 ditch. They will go before the
state Committee tomorrow With an APP
real. they will fight the present commit
tee of Henrico on the ground that IL -
not the lawful committee. ana that !.
presumed to investigate where IL nae
No authority; they will go to the courts
and TO the Supreme Court II necessary
"a compel the Henrico committee TO
nr,ve us iustice' The matter can be
reached through the courts by q mai
damus to compel the committee to snow
cause why n certificate of election snou,d
not issue to w. H. Brauer. Incidentally
the VALIDITY Of the Barksdae law and
the INTERPRETATION Of that law would nave
to he brought up and passed upon
..The decision Is the most monstrons
FRAT was ever rendered by any thirteen
men, said Major Sands Yesterday
seems to have been without reference
Or regard to tho testimony, but 70 nave
been dictated by personal preference IN
the primary We rejoice that there is
committee to which we can appeal, and
which can give verdict OF fairness
between man and man. we nave no
favors to nsh OF the Henrico committee.
The decision is nothing. more tnan OK
pected from the start"
-,he IJenrico committee, on the other
hand, holds. and 1t Is prepared TO con
tend. that the State committee mas !, no
iurisd,ction whatsoever over 1t. 1t does
not anticipate any interference by ina
hody. It holds that 1t Is legalized com
m,ttee, acting under the auti'orl]a 'l.,,
40 law ana that 1t Is subject to the Will
ana dictation of no higher committee.
So far as Henrico county Is concerned, IL
&C. +he head and foot and the state com
Yn,ttee cannot interfere with 1t. WIN
ra7erence to the charge that 1t is not
the lawful committee, Mr.. Ruflin stale ,.l
of7re until tho affairs OF the primary
sr1 settied. It may see fit to declare
~. 1,,hnle election null and VOID, IN wnic ,I
COS. the newly elected committee itseil
would be declared non existent.
A Delicate Position.
rha specIal interest that attaches TO
.,,ary move made by the committee is
d,,e to the fact that this Is the iirst con
fast that has yet arisen under the pa. ~ y
dale law, and that important preceuen
NAV now be set. The committee Is cotR
. ,,.as AZ gentlemen who are earnests
.+riv;nr To edo tho law enfI 1,th..he AZ
f,urifv elections In cue county. w nete
Or not their decisions are right ana
rron.r is another matter. Tho commit
tee "A a committee. Is doing as 1t con-
acientiously believes to be right. Its position
is an unusually delicate and difficult one
The path is new; there are no precedents
to follow; unassisted by bipartisan legal
advice, It has to carve Its own way.
Whether It has done this well and wisely
can be Judged by each man LOT hiil'se'i
from the results. -,
The suggestion that the committee will
ond by having an investigation In gen
eral and declare the whole election null
and void and order new one IS suG-
eestion only. The Hechler-Todd investi-
cation will end 1t. No other charges have
been filed and 1t is too late now to file
the committee has disposed OF the treas
urership. There has also been some aues-
ton raised as to the criminal prosecution
Of candidates found guilty OF violation OF
the Barksdale law. This point is yet un-
decided. Mr.. Ruffin was OF the opinion
yesterday that the committee would prob
ably not report to the grand jury.
prominent local attorney declared later
that the grand Jury would have to take
ccenizance OF the matter whether the
committee reported or not.
Contradictory statements have been
made with reference to the standing OF
the committee on the Brauer matter, and
the accuracy OF the report of The Times
Dispatch yesterday has been questioned.
This report was entirely correct. There
were three votes In the committee. The
4 first was on the question OF declaring Mr..
Brauer guilty Under specification oner the
committee voted eight to five. The sec
ond was on the question OF declaring
him guilty under specification three; the
committee again voted eight to 1--WE.
There they stopped. deemng 1t unneces-
sary to include other specifications. Then
tho paper as a whole, finding Mr.. Brauer
guilty of the two specifications and deny
Ing to him the certificate, was passed
upon. Upon this final and deciding line
up the committee stood eleven to two in
favor OF the report. The authority for
these statements Is not given. but they
are made with positive certainty. The
two men who voted for Brauer are z. S.
Kellam, secretary Of the committee, and
James NJ. Eanes.
The Hearing.
The hearing OF the Wendenburg- Throck.
morton case began a little after noon.
The crowd was rather smaller than usual
and not so many members of the COM
mittee We're present as on the day pro-
Hyiou IN r{n fha
however.
Secretary Kellam. who said Tuesday
night that he would not attend and that
he would probably resign; was conspi-
cuous by his absence. Mr., Joseph A.
Johnston was appointed TO serve In his
place. The other members of the com
mittee present were as follows: Messrs.
T. c. Ruffin, Lewis f. Meyer. F. Ellis
Jones, L. P. Michaels George c.. Gre
CORY. Thomas F. Bagby, ], w. Taylor,
Ayer Angle. Fl. 8. Winston ]. NJ, Eanes
and w, K Bache