The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-08-26
SECOND PRIMARY
SEEMS OOUBTFU
Norfolk Paper Demands An
other Election, But Law
Provides None
MAYNARD CONTINUES u
TO CLAIM VICTORY.
Says Returns Do Not Indicate
Real Vote--District Com
mittee Faces Knotty
Problem.

Especial to The Richmond yirginian.,
NORFOLK, VA. Aug. 26.--Charginl
that evidence is abundant showing tina
gross irregularities ana possible fran<
existed in the primary election Tuo8l
day, when. according To the return1
William A. Young received the con
5ressionai nomination for Congress
Ter the present incumbent, Harry II
Maynard. the virginian- Pilot, OF thu
city, demands that a new election N
ordered. although 1t Is argued by sofi!
tnat as the primary plan provides 10
-c1iltesIs-l4l- congressional eteett0f1z
second election cannot be held, AMI
that the district committee will have
20 settle the question as best 1t can.
The Virginian- Pilot editorial Is u
tollows;
Irrespective of the merit or lack
OF merit of MIR. aynard's pro-
test in connection with certain
precincts in Norfolk county, II
prima facie evidence Is abundant
that gross irregularities, or worse
Characterized more or less -gsnsE~-
ally the conduct of Tuesdays cons
gressional primary election. not
only in the county above mentions
where in the district as WE'LL
In such circumstances, 1t is more
than a Sisyphan task for the cam
wasting committees, the local ex-s
ecutive committees or the district
committee itself to separate the
regular from the irregular and 20
arrive at anything approaching
an accurate determination OF
whether Mr.. Young or Mr.. May
nard Is the choice OF the majority
of the participants in Tuesdays
primary as representative from
this district in the Sixty-second
Congress.
The district executive COMMITTEES
should assemble at the earliest ops
portunity. declare Tuesdays re-
suits null and void and order
new primary elections to deter~
mine the nominee, prescribing
such stringent rules and reEnia-
tions for the conduct OF the naw
election as shall leave no unf&tr~
tuntty for Irregularities or UNFAIR
ness. To this end 1t might provide
for the utilization of the tudges
and clerks employed In the last
regular election. provided they can
be induced to serve.
Such action we believe to -
demanded in the interest OF ths
democracy of the district, OF this
district itself and as q matter Of
even-handed Justice to both Mr.. I
Young and Mr.. Maynard.
A not considerable proportion
OF the democrats OF the district
will feel under no obligation TO
support in the regular election =
nominee be he Young or Nay
nard. whose certificate or nomi-
nation bears the suspicion Of
having been obtained unfairly \
and fraudulently: and as condi- &
items ROW arc, srspfctun muxt ne
cessarily attach to the certificatev
no matter to which Of the cons
testants 1t may be awarded.
II Mr.. Young and Mr. Maynard
each believes he lie the choice az
the majority OF the democrats az +
the district as their representative 1
in the next congress. neither of
them should have any hesitAncy
in entering another primary, but
each should demand an opporuni-
ity so to demonstrate the faith
that Is In him. Such an electt0n
would prove which is the real
choice. The one that Is would get
the certificate and the job. Tha
one that isn't ought not to want \
either.
Claims Nomination.
While the returns from TueBdn3s
primary election still show Young 4
be leading Maynard by So. Maynaxi
claims the nomination. and In H5
contest which he says will be fuuGf
out to the bitter end before the dfS
trict committee. the congresannMl
charges both fraud and Intimidation
The point Is made that the genef4
primary plan does not contemp1a&
contests OF congressional primnxs
elections, and that the district COT
mittea will have to award the 60
tificate of election TO Young X r.
face OF the returns as ofiiciaily 60
vassed by the city and county cor
mittee show Young to have recetv9i
a majority of the votes cast.
Maynard says the district comrn1l
tee win have to permit an investim&
ton of poll books to show whxt3S
persons not qualified TO vote No.
permitted to vote. The district co.,
mittee has not been called to met y
yet Maynard has given formal -
tees of protest and contest Of IN
vote In Norfolk city and NoEGS
county to the respective local ~
mtttees. District Chairman Day
a congressional contest Ii unpt4
denied. and he knows no provisioIx
the primary plan for such cents
Meeting City Chairman Powha<
s. Schenck to-day, CongreEsEnaM xM
nard told him that he would haYS
his hands before 10 A. M. t0-ynoxS4S
his written notice OF protest ana ~
test of the Norfolk vote With P1yxf1c
lar reference to the courthouse M
cinct. Nothing since the famous k
tober primary" said Mr.. Maynard
dressing DR. Schenck. begins "a CO.
pare with the deal got In N0xtN
sssS
Chairman Schenck. replying Ia
some feeling, asked Mr.. Maynard
there could be any more ground
Of the section IN ~
Young received large maj0rftieo
Young could complain or tho
tions in which Maynard rec
large matorities. Or. 6chenclE%
the election In Norfolk city ha6
with all possible fol
and said to Mr.. Maynard thak
not see upon what grounds ~
possibly base 4 contest-
Mr.. Maynard raid ~ Waa
willing for the vota to ~ Eo@
and for an Investigation IN
VKSHssS