The Mathews journal. (Mathews C.H. [Court House]) 1903-1937, 1910-11-10

= G. H NJ ND, VA--Special.-
An accommodating and usually accu-
curate political friend recently led
this paper into a slight error concern
ing the election laws of this city and
Norfolk and the statute under which
Jackson Wise was convicted in the
Hastings Court here.
The Wise case, in view OF the pend
ing prosecutions for alleged election
frauds in Norfolk, now makes interest
ing reading, elthough Il was settled by
years ago. when a ruling OF Judge Witt
was fully sustained.
Jackson Wise. an election official Of
Richmond. was arrested as the SEQUEL
OF municipal primary election in
which the city sergenacy fight had been
Royal, about that time, raised a loud
protest against crookedness at the polls
and several persons were charged wfyD
fraud. wise; however, was the only
The accused was prosecuted under a
statute entitled IAN act to amend chap
ter 10 OF the Code of Virginia in refer
ence to general and special elections:
when and where to be held; regulations
for their conduct and government; COM
penSation for services in election, etc"
This act. II appears, was passed after
section 36 had been Incorporated into
the new Constitution. Section SO of the
General Assembly shall enact such laws
as are necessary and proper for the
purity of general, local and primary
elections, and preventing and furnishing
any corrupt practices in connection
herewith; and shall have power, in ad-
dition to other penalties and punish
ments, to provide that persons convict
ed OF them shall thereafter be disquali-
fed from voting or holding Office"
The act amending chapter 10 OF the
Code. among other things, contains this
paragraph: "All laws intended to Sc
cure the regularity and purity of gem
eral and local elections and to prevent
and punish any corrupt practices in
connection Herewith and the penalties
and punishments now and hereafter
prescribed by law for such offenses,
shall. so far as they may be applica-
whether the same be held under any
statute law of this State or under a
plan provided for some political party.
At the very outset of the Wise prose
cution, counsel for the accused, Viii
liam A. Moncure and James w. Cor
don. demurred to the indictment for the
than one object. and for the further
reason that the object OF said act, in
sofar as IL relates to primary elections
Is not embraced in the title OF said act
Judge Witt overruied the demurrer
and the accused was given a term OF
upon appealed to the Virginia Supreme
Court, where they raised the same con-
stitutional question. 1t was alleged I'm
Witt had erred in overriding the de
murrer. In their petition counsel said ::
me section Is eNlOently an AFTER
thought inserted without proper con
sideration. and one which interrupts the
continuity of thought and mars the
harmony OF the whole act. 1t in no
wise aids the objects and purposes OF
the chapter"
Although the petition cited many con
stitutional authorities and dwelt on the
fact that the Virginia statutes always
differentiated between special" and
primary" elections. the appellate court
obviously was not impressed with the
argument 1t even refused TO allow
Wise a writ OF error. and hence Judge
Wits ruling was sustained in a most
emphatic way.
This case. therefore, ought TO be a
precedent, even though il is not in the
Virginia Reports, which contain only
the decisions rendered after the grant
ing OF appeals and writs OF error. But
the record of the case, together with
the petition of counsel. is still on file in
the clerks office.
Wise was convicted in the Hastings
Court December 81. 1906. and after the
decision of the appellate tribunal, he
served his term in jail.
The Journal was correct when IL said
that this city. at one time. had had a
special election law providing for legal
lied primaries. but that was prior TO
the new Constitution. The act was
passed in 1S94 and amended in 1898,
but ~ evidently was superseded by the
new organic law and the statutes sub
sequentiy enacted. At any rate, Wise
was not convicted under IL.