Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1910-12-09
DECLARES The PRIMARY
Is ALREADY PROTECTED
Chief Executive Says the Present
Election Law Is Unconstitutional
and He Is Not Justified in Calling
the State Lawmakers Together to
Enact Another Measure.

RICHMOND. VA, Dec. Slower
nor Mann this morning wrote TO Har-
ry ST. George Tucker. of Norfolk, de-
clining TO call a special session OF
the legislature 10 pass law legaliz-
ing primary elections.
In this the governor answered let
ter from Harry St. George Tucker. in
which The latter made the direct re-
quest 10 the executive to assemble an
extraordinary session of the general
assembly next year Tor that purpose.
No petition has ever been present
ed to the governor asking that an eX-
ira session of the legislature be call
ed 10 enact a primary law, although
Il has been reported that a petition
was being circulated for signatures in
the Second congressional district.
Governor Mann's letter 10 Mr.
Tucker tells the whole story.
Gov. Msnn's Letter. e
Dec 8. 1919
Hon. Harry st. George Tucker.
Norfolk, Virginia.
Dear Sir
] trust YOU will excuse the delay
of this reply. as | wrote ON the
Goth ultime that yours of the Gath
reached me while preparing to go TO
Kentucky TO attend the conference of
governors and could not then give il
the attention il deserved.
Mature deliberation has convinced
me that it is neither necessary. prop
err. nor expedient to call the General
Assembly in extra session 10 revise
the present or enact another primary
law. | have reached this conclusion
from ;he following reasons:
First: ! think yen are mistaken in
suppo5ing that large majority of
the Democrats of tho State will great
~ regret my decision in reference TO
a special session of the legislature.
have received nine letters in regard
to it. two in favor-yours being one
six against. and one which left me
in doubt as to the position of the
writer. Surely. if any considerable
number OF people had desired an ex-
ira session of the legislature, they
would have made their wishes known.
Primary Protected
Second: Il is well known that
there are differences of opinion in
reference to the primary. many good
men preferring the convention, but II
may. for the purposes of this letter.
he considered as settled that the
Democratic party favors the primary
plan of making nominations. | can
not. however. agree with you that
the primary as II exists is not pro-
tec.ed by law. On the contrary. the
law provides that all laws intended to
secure the regularity and purity of
general and local elections and 10
prevent and punish any corrupt prac-
tees in connection Herewith. and the
penalties and punishments now or
Hereafter prescribed by law for such
offenses shall. so far as they may be
applicable. apply 10 all primary cleo
tons. whether the same be held I'M
der any statute law of this State or
under a plan provided by sone politi.
cal party.
Judges Mistaken.
II can readily Re seen that this law
gives to the primary the protection Il
affords to general elections but your
view is that this law. having been
recently declared unconstitutional
there is no law to punish frauds by
election officers in a primary election
II is true tha; upon a demurrer 10
an indictment charging election OH
GERS in the first primary for congress
this year in the Second district that
the Judge ~ the corporation court OF
Norfolk held she act auored above IN
constitutional. sustained the demurrer
OF the accused. and dismissed the
case. Ills decision was followed BY
two other judges. ] have grea: re
spect for these JUDGES. they are men
cf high character and well equipped
for the duties Of the once they hold
and ] know they rendered heir de
cfsious from a s-nse OF public dirty
but ! am lust as sure that they were
mistaken in their Judgment. and thai
the law IL constitutional
This conclusion IL fully justified b.
the case Of commonwealth against
Jackson wisc. judge in a primary
election. Who was indicted In the
husfines court o. TIE city 81 Rich
u-oaf. Dec. 81. 1906. under which the
Norfolk election officers we're indict
ed. There was a demurrer to the IN
ficfmcnt because the iitic Of the ac'
was not broad enough TO cover ifs
provisions IN respect TO primary cleo
.ions. and the case. a. J understand
T.. me same IN al respects as ~
Norfolk cae.. Iudrc Witt overruftd
st~ dornn~ror and Wise Vas found