The Mathews journal. (Mathews C.H. [Court House]) 1903-1937, 1910-12-01
On COMMENT
OVER DECISION

WEN UeGlSIUh
9 II OND. vA-Special.-
= TEXANS and lawyers OF This city
: S5 eefiy unable 10 understand the
. OF the Norfolk and Norfolk
e % courts which quashed the pro-
n against the indicted election
u OF th2 Second Congressional
hg Tor alleged Irregularities in
N'dynaro- Young primary
"a pr as the newspaper reports in
a land they apparently are accu-
81 oS same constitutional points
n IA the second District eases
"a "ere decided here. first by Judge
y the Hastings Court. and then
he 'e virginia Court OF Appeals IN
sc OF Jackson Wise.
1 yet the Second District courts.
Ak trlng the law Unconstitutional
) 81 position Numerically opposed
De- OF Judge Witt and tle highest
Test Iriounei "a the Common
o9k% eV cry side hereabouts the ones
Iork asked: Was nothing said in
VlsEolkS ana Nortolk county about the
shE use and the precedent estab-
eflto y IL when the Supreme Court
( essou I 10 allow the accused a writ /
and thereby sustained Judge
+ Ill. wfo upheld the constitutionaIity /
Tfae sqatute?'
rinHe WISE case was the sequel of the
hid ar election Of June 30 1895. at
, VI f9lcnmonders were called upon
lat 8te FOR their members of the 10 10
cerk IRE as well as for municipal Of i
COZ oss frauds were charged, and as
ldg NlseVNence jackson Wise. election
on r.. and l.. X. Culbertson. an -eIac-
recib clerk, under him st one of the
heyN nctS. were accused OF fraud |
ppr& WeAe prosecuted under the act
nd RNeo january IL, 1905 to amend
sHe-eiact chapter 10 Of the Code
lecti leIesee to general and special
ord Hse's counsel Smith, Moncure and II
for N, oemurred to the Indictment
raeeN ne fason that the said act em-
tie mere than one objeek in its
ne Hano or the further reason that
elateE bject of said act, insofar as it
I'm titley '9'eN
oD. &c WITT after careful considera-
theT oVeruled the demurrer-iui !
IonalR worF, sustained the constitu- :
embt4ty o4the act and Wise. on De- :
iven Isl was convicted and | !
'as a nin'eg days in Jail. Culbertson
be al misdmeanor indictment against 7
lent Acusee was Voluminous docu-
I me. Ncontahing ten counts. designed :
dnesS ssfy phase of election crook
hang Tn marking, altering or
{ spuNng ballots, the substitutio1iI
alse ROY Ballots for genuine ones
&c en- eftA ates TO tie City Commit
efvab PUT eNeTy thing else con-
Wis lt TIC same line. S
RENE 2 aied the case TO the Su- y
rror but the only ground of Z
Judge ed by his lawyers was a
emuri M action IN overruling the 81
THAT n
othinl supreme Court thought, W
'as ev * ne appellants contention tN
efused ny the fact that il even Is
1e co a writ OF error. In short. u
orrectk las so convinced of the
hat IL III Judge Wits decision .
o6nseltN "a allowed the defendants j
heir pF ~ a chance to supplement II
This with verbal arguments. | g
ellate on the part of the APP y
ikable was clearcut and unmis- "
ettled- ettied---or ought TO have
NO cor u time the fact that the 4
old 80 onai points raised do not n
And n
ure, b Second District proce-
ringinl W the same statute andi
he san attention of the court
a the utuuonal points, results
round OF the accused on theI
onal &c statute Is unconstitu-
,n,5 - at the Richmond case
he F<,S q District cases involve
WOW nts. IL is said Chat H.
r,Ain, bic to have the accused
orcc ~ their alleged misdeedsE
indsres sseu upon by The same
ne ind such a course followed
- Nv, a tft31 eaton an sat De Specfd-l
nrar,e @ the asssss$$sa ~ the Su-
AZ I'll a the Wise case.
az anns nonWeaith has no right |
sin,sT1o such prosecutions. the
lark STANDS now. is pecu-
present. ~ And it apparently
ronrf.e anomaly NJ a lower
pellate : ,a the action qf NE ap-
the 80 n the case Of Wise VS..
among cath can be found
cords OF the Virginia
- .4~ Oh Appeals "a Bundle
o tnd qrtsmouth star says:
he fonr Tact that no law can
sSland nmonweaith's ATTORNEY
Frauds + applicable TO the
- nv 70 nave been commit
W. "a .t7 - the Second and Fifth
.sr,.ssion mouth during the con-
,riIl he AIRY, August 23d, therei
ma Sor ecuuon of these cases.
TODAY. q attn Attorney statedi
arthorjy o'lsw applicable to or N.
cases y prosecutions of such DA
-, 81 - 1 result i wiz in due
he nrol d to Judge Balm that
sasa 80, be nolle prvsseuuied."I \
..rbs Ia H.. attn 5 Attorney Bland WI
,.lass.ss Town applies 10 three Wi
General 'ns-locai. special and iSnf
80 - not touch on prirna t5iis
he nsefs re, find thatrI wlH tbS.
60 into k oe SommOnwestuh tot yea
. rrS ~ cution."
80 ~, >, lation Of Common - ~
! ~. oase y Bland TO ask thati 80
,naylrs l< Kissed from the docket -
Ame7,st< 'ng of the celebrated soH
civ 30 investigations. IN this ia
co,,rts !, Norfolk county. the lpt
,nied m latter having already a''u
10 rhe . IS no law applicablel
~ ~ lar ges. : RR
inrs a M IN the court Of hust- we
bIfIs a j KS ago returned true tstI
in me Sax Judges who served
re- -. nd Fifth WARDS vot-
1t =,
mo- y t thought by the Com
a Ia orney that there was
Nit - Dbed TO frauds conn
~ TX l,S lary, but as q RESULT
len u& investigation ne has eI
vi W M re is no law which le
N ne question today al q
m 4 or Portsmouth andi W
*.< q that the. action OF ds
"a - - termining that there
n the offenders in the CO
II .<'$< s. -. can be dealth with al