Lexington gazette. [volume] (Lexington, Va.) 1871-1962, 1910-12-14
AN EXTRA SESSION
IS NOT EXPEDIENT
Governor Mann's Reply to Letter
of Hon. H. ST. Geo. Tucker
GIVES REASONS FOR REFUSAL
Chief Executive Thinks There Is No
Emergency

call an extra session of the State
Legislature for the purpose Of enact
ing a law legalizing primaries, the
Governor last Thursday wrote MIR.
Tucker as follows:
Hon. HARRY ST. GEORGE TUCKER,
Norfolk, Va.
DEAR SIR trust you will ex-
cuse the delay OF this reply, as l
wrote on the Goth ultimo that yours
of the oath reached me while pre-
pairing TO 90 TO Kentucky TO attend
the Conference of Governors and
could not then give it the attention
it deserved,
Mature elaboration has onvinc-
ed me that il is neither necessary,
proper nor expedient to call the
General Assembly in extra session
TO revise the present or enact
another primary law. have reach
ed this conclusion from the follow
ing reasons:
First. think you are mistaken in
supposing that a large majority OF
the Democrats of the State will great
ly regret my decision in reference
TO a special session of the Legisla-
ture. | have received nine letters
in regard to 1.-TWO in favor (yCurS
being one), six against, and one
which left me in doubt Us to the
position OF the writer.
Second. 1t is well known that there
are differences of opinion in refer
ence to the primary, many 200
men preferring the convention, but
it may, for the purposes of this let
ter, be considered as settled that
the Democratic party favorS the
primary plan Of making nominations.
| cannot, however, agree with you
that the primary as it exists is not
protected by law. On the contrary,
the law provides that all laws in
tended to secure the regularity and
purity of General and local elections
and to prevent and punish any cor
rupt practices in connection there
with, and the penalties and punish
ments ~ow or hereafter prescribed
by law for such offenses shall, so
far as they may be applicable, apply
to all primary elections, whether
; ,he same be held under any statute
law of this State or under plan
provided by some political party. "
1t can be readily seen that this
law gives to the primary the pro-
lection it affords to general elect
ions, but your view is that this law,
: having recently been declared un.
punish frauds by election officers
= in primary election. 1t is true
that upon a demurrer TO an indict
nent charging election officers il
. the first primary for Congress thi:
: year in the Second District, tina
J. the judge of the Corporation Cour
0 of Norfolk held the act quoted above
e Unconstitutional, sustained the de
o murrer of the accused, and dismiss
S ed the case. His decision was fol
S lowed by two other judges. hav,
great respe I for these judges; the,
j. are men of high character, and wei
l. equipped for the duties of the of1ic
70 they hold, and | know they render
& ed their decisions from a sense q
g public duty, but l am just as sur
s that they were mistaken in thei
: Judgment, and that the law is con
5. stitutional.
1T This conclusion is fully justifie,
le by the case of Common wealth agains
Jackson Wise, judge in a prin ary
IL election, who was indicted in tn
is Hastings Court of the city of Rich
al mond, on the 2lst of December
b 1908. under the general law, tn
~ same under which the Norfolk elet
I'd tiOr "cers were indicted. Their
re was demurrer to the indictmer
because the title of the act was M
broad enough to cover it's prov
y sions in respect to primary ele
to tons, and the case, as l understan
ae it. the same in all respects as tt
Norfolk case. Judge Witt override