The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1908-02-26

whatever With the alteration of the re-
turing. and had been retained in his
employment after that was done. This
reasoning. however. does not take into
consideration the action of Mr.. Smith
on the 10th day of November, 1902.
and while tho election must have been
in doubt to all except those who had
information at headquarters. ,a.
day W p. Smith called a mass-meet-
ty, and that at that meeting ! series
Of rssolhslons wers passed W santt
county would not support any claim
Judge Rhea might make to the. cleo
tion under these circumstances. 1t was
at as9 s seoW cty sha nfer the election maS until
court day of the following week. and
no connection is shown between the
said Smith and the, alteration OF the
said returns. nor is there any cyl
Herewith
In Buchanan County.
In Buchanan county 1t appears from
the testimony OF w. l.. Dennis, who
was clerk OF the court In l5Vl, that
MIR. Lockert came there to his county
and asked il the canyassing board had
met, and inquired In regard TO the re-
turns; that he does not know whether
Mr.. Lockert was present with the board
In the clerks office while the returns
We're being canvassed. but thinks he
was. After the returns were canvassed
and certified, Mr.. Dennis left the Of
flee. leaving the returns on the table;
that he left in the office Mr.. Hibbitts
and Mr.. John c. Mccoy, but is not sure
whether Mr.. Lockert was in there or
not, but. in his opinion, he was; that
when he came back he took the certifi-
Gates and mailed one to the Secretary
other In his office: that he was told
that there was difference of hun
dred votes between the. certificates
sent to the Secretary of the Common
MI. Hihbitts and Mr.. Mccoy We're both
Republicans, and MIR. Hibbitts very
prominent; that Mr.. Mccoy was his
deputy clerk; that he does not know
but thinks he was a Democrat.
1t will be observed that there Is no
evidence whatever TO connect Mr..
heh with any Of these frauds
some overzealous political friend OF
Judge Rhea, and az Judge Rhea testi-
files. without his knowledge or con-
sent. This statement appears to be
proved by the action of Judge Rhea
at the time, The election took place
upon the 4th of November. 1909. and
the canvassing board met upon the
9Th OF that month. Upon the sth the
elected. the facts in reference to the
alteration of the certificate not then
appearing, and the only irregularities
OF which Judge Rhea seems to be cog
infant were the throwing out of the
precincts of Austinville and Patterson,
In Wythe. and Mendoza In Washing
ton county; that when he came to look
INTO the matter he found that he was
precincts last mentioned should be
counted.
Rhen's Card to Newspaper.
On the 10th of November. and before
rnf nf
the Democrats at Gate City. In Scott
county, he issued a card, which was
published the next day in the Bristol
paper. and which is as follows:
II have not been in a position
until now to mako any detailed
statement as to the result of the
recent election. nor am T now able
TO but partially do so. The only
definite information have received
as to the grounds upon which any
returns have been rejected has been
as to the precincts of Austinville
and Patterson, in W,ythe county,
! am sure that the board of COM
missioners in each of said coun-
ties Were perfectly honest and con-
scientious in their belief that said
returns should be rejected, because
of legal technicalities, and that
they had no legal right to count
said votes. yet I believe that the
votes Of the two precincts Of Pat
~
long to my opponent. and would
probably elect him and entitle him
to the certificate. thus believing
If certificate of election We're is
sued to me by the State, board of
canvassers. based on the exclusion
Of the precincts mentioned, would
decline it,
1t was asserted in the charge that
Judge Rhea did not issue this card
until the handwriting appeared upon
the WALL" that is until he knew that
Mr.. Slemp had commenced mandamus
proceedings to require the canvass
ers, IN the several counties where the
precincts We're thrown out, to meet and
true, according to the evidence. The
mandamus proceedings were not
against Judge Rhea, and he was not
party to them. and the notices We're not
same day on which he issued his card.
One of the notices, and the first, was
served on w. o. Booker. one of the
commissioners of election. in Wash
ington county, and the others do not
appear to have been served until the
11th; but Judge Rhea absolutely de-
MES that he had any notice of these
mandamus proceedings or of the meet
ing at Gate City. until after he had
prepared and had published the card,
a copy of which appears In this re-
port. Judge Rhea's conduct, therefore,
shows that he did not propose to take
advantage either of frauds or irregu-
larities. and that as soon as he discov-
iority of the qualified voters of the
Ninth District, he stated publicly and
in writing that he would decline to-
receive the certificate from the cam
wasting board If It was rendered him.
ton that while Judge Rhea had been
the contestee in two election contests
---------- T-7H