Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1903-10-29
HE FRAUD Al NORFOLK.

THE FRAUD AT NORFOLK.
At the recent Democratic primary in the
city of Norfolk what is known as the ring
faction charged that the so-called good
government" faction had committed gross
frauds. The "rlng" still continues to
make it's charges, and the Norfolk Vir
ginian- Pilot in speaking of the matter says:
1.-The charge of wholesale fraud In the
recent primaries continues to be made by
the ring people against the judges and
clerks Of election. To a general charge of
that sort, unsubstanliated by evidence, no
reputable man need give attention, and no
wellad,ised man will give attention. The
charge to be worthg of attention must be
supported by the citation of facts. Until
specific charges are made and facts are
addrced, there is nothing to refute and
hence prospect of nothing but futile
and unseemly controversy, if refutation be
attempted"
Our contemporary then states THAT the
parties who made these changes have set
about the gathering of facts to substanti-
ate them"
five understand the situation, at the
primary the two factions had candidates
running The good government faction
had control of the machinery and appoin-
ted all the judges, clerks and tally-keepers
from their own faction. The ''ring' de-
manded that they should have repre-
sentation by having tally. keepers present,
if nothing more. The good govern
ment" people refused to let the ring have
any representation whatever where the
vote was being polled. That was enough
to convince any disintcrested person that
the 'good government" faction was fixing
to coiulnit fraud. When any party or
faction refuses an opposing party or fac
ton representation among those who con-
duct an election it is prlma faca evidence
that fraud is contemplated; and where
fraud is prepared for in advance it is
usually committed.
That fraud was contemplated by the
"good government" faction was not only
proved by The refusal to glye the other
faction representation, but was empha.
sized by !he manner in which the voting
at the primary in question was conducted.
The viva voce method Of voting had to be
used according to the plans of the State
Democratic organization. What is the
object of viva vOce voting? Surely, to let
everybody know how the voter casts his
vote and to prevent any possibility of
fraudulent recording or counting of the
votes cast. To obtain these ends the VIVA
voce voting must be public. At Norfolk
he voting was done in secret That is,
where no one but the interested repre-
sentatives of the good government" fac
ton could hear the voter announce his
choice between thecandidates. The ''ring'
was not allowed to have any representa-
tives even in hearing distance; and the
voting was as secret as when done by
ballot.
After the primary the good govern
ment" people refused to allow the ring
faction access to the poll books or tally
sheets, that copies Of the same might be
made What does that indicate If not
fraudulent concealment, what is it
The Virglnian-Pllot says it is gratifying
to know that facts are being gathered to
substantiate tie charges of fraud, if any
was committed. Now, this is very ridicu-
lous. If fraud was done at the primary,
it is only known to those who did it. How |
then can the facts be obtained9 Will
some of the guilty parties confess