The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-03-06
States CONSTITUTION
NO LONGER PROTECTS
PEOPLE Of v|RG|N|A
Continued from First Page. }


no charge OF fraud was made. Irregu-
iarities alone, without any motive.
were charged. 1t was urged that
these Irregularities, however, were In
fact defeating the suffrage clause of
the constitution which had been re-
garded the most important work of
the convention of 19o1-1902. 1t was
urged that IL an election could not
be thrown out when these Irregular
ties, such as the on-requirement of
voters 10 hand In written applica-
tions for registration. were clearly
shown to have been practiced, with
or without intent of fraud, the suf-
frage OF the entire State was In dam
ger; that thousands OF negro voters
could be registered by venal elements
for political proposes. and in effect,
the entire purpose of the present con-
stitution. as regards the suffrage,
would be defeated.
The vets replied 10 the petition
In two ways. One was by a demurrer
on the ground that the corporation
court had no jurisdiction in the case,
and the other was an answer to the
petition itself.
The demurrer was based mainly on
the ground that the actions OF a regis
trar could not be reviewed BY a.
higher court except In the manner ex-
pressly laid down In the statutes, viz,
In cases where voters had been de-
MED the right to vote or when, within
rtain time limits, fraud could be
alleged. After that time limit and
after the registrar had finally passed
upon the cases of individual voters. il
was argued, there was no appeal from
the decisions of the registrars.
The answer was based mainly on
h.
fraud charged, and therefore the
election expressed the will of the peo-
pie justly and fairly. 1t was admitted
that Federal employees had served as
Judges OF election and that written
applications had not been made for
registration, but II was alleged that
these did not in this instance consti-
tute reasons for the throwing out of
the election in that II WAS not proved
as matter OF fact that the election
had not fairly decided the issue at
stake.
History OF Trial.
AT the February term OF the Corpora
ton Court the case was called, and a
brilliant array Of counsel faced Judge
Christian. For the ~wets' Randolph
Harrison. who only the week before had
made the closing argument for Virginia
ttA e8aS A&Ii&onr 0Sbk tASs against VtSi
Virginia before the Supreme Court OF
the United States: J. Tinsley Coleman
and Fred Harper appeared For the
| "drys were Judge A. A. Phlegar. OF
Christiansburg; George E. Caskie and
Thomas Whitehead, Jr. attorney for
the State Anti Saloon League. The
arguments occupied two entire days
and were exhaustive and able. A large
mass of legal material had been search
g.. = Ii ~.
and the number of citations was ex-
tremely large, and betokened an i'm
mense amount OF close study and wide
knowledge. The arguments followed
largely the lines laid Down in the Pc
tition, and the demurrer and the an
swer, Judge Christian refusing TO con-
slider the demurrer separately from the
| petition and the answer, ana while al
times the recitation OF cases and deci
sions was dry and uninteresting, the
| speeches were for the most part bril-.
liant aad fsasl Of fire. ,-.- '"'~.
The case was closely followed by the
people of the city and by many inter-
ested persons all over the State, hu,
until to-day no intimation of the result
lof the matter could be given. 1t was
recognized as matter for purely lega
consideration and decision. notwith-
! standing the tremendous effects the de-
cision would have upon the shaping oi
! the future electorate of the State al
large. and its consequent vital import.
1 anca politically in time to come. ~. ~.