The Mathews journal. (Mathews C.H. [Court House]) 1903-1937, 1912-10-24
ORD POINTS T0
PRIMARY DEFECTS

- zig ttt-ot4 laws 81 TINS ana 0tNer
ored 10 induce the Legislature 20 en-.
body his views IN q statute, believes
that the existing lew which came hi
for 50 much discussion in the Fourth
Dastrlct contest. MAY yet be amended
int q state OF usefulness
But, in his opinion. &c Siu
never really he worth much until
the Judges or ciectioD are APP
pointed by the electoral boards
and until the votes cast In pri-
Inaries arc cnnvassea as required
by the general election law, and
the courts have jurisdiction OF an
appeals
In other words. Speaker Byrd be-
beves that the day has come when
primaries should be taken out OF the
hands OF party authorities and con-
Quoted 3usz as other elections are
lie has enunciated this principle doz-'
ems OF times and it has everywhere
with him in a sincere desire for pure.
elections. The State Legislature and
the State Democratic Committee dis
agree with him.
As for the act which now regulates
primary elections in Virginia, the
Speaker rather danlns il by faint
praise when he says: while the
present law is not what I wanted
think It IS better than no law at ali p
Mr.. Byrd was counsel for Judge
contest. and in that capacity had oc-
caslon, OF course, to give a great deal
of study to the controversy between
the successful candidate and his op-
ponenS CONGRESSMAN Robert Turn
The Speaker is firmly OF the opinion
that no fraud was committed in the
Fourth District primary.
He says the trouble following that
election was due chiefly to the diner
ing constructions as to the new Con-
stitution.
one OF the most puzzling questions
that arose was whether the treasurer's
list OF qualified voters was exclusive
as we'll as conclusive.
To put it differently. there was some
doubt as TO whether man whose
name was not on the list, but who.
nevertheless, produced his tax re-
ceipts, could vote,
This class of suffraraus however
was permitted by both sides to ballot
though the point. after all. is one that
must finally be decided by the Virginia
supreme Court
At the request of The Journal. Mr..
Byrd has prepared the foilowinE
statement concerning the existing pri-
mary law and it's defects.
The original so-called Byrd pri-
mary bill was published in full in the
newspapers in the fall OF 1909, and
subjected TO full discussion. This bilI
was introduced by me in the House of
Delegates. session Of 1910, but was
not passed.
The same bill, with some minor
changes. suggested by Senator Feath
erston, was introduced in 1919 5dkNyI
by the senator and myself. SeraIbr
SraVatt introduced a bill OF the sake
import and was a warm advocate NJ
the Dill OF the Byrd-Feathcrston -
The theory upon which the origi-
nal Dill was constructed was that, as
the constitution, section Sc. required
the General Assembly to legalize pri-
public function AND ehould. therefore.
be administered yfublic officers and
the expenses paid ~ Of the treasury
Therefore, the original bill pro-
rioed that the judges of elec-
ton should be appointed by the
electoral boards and that the votes
snonid De canvasSed as required
IN the general election law. and
that the courts should have iuris-
diction of all appeals.
Thirty Amendments in Senate.
This bill passed the House of Dele
gates without material amendment. 1t
then went TO the Senate, where II
suffered upwards OF thirty amend
ments
The Senate amendments were in
tended TO change the House bill In
q very vital particular; namely. to take
from the public officers the admins
Sratton of the law and place IL In the
hands of party committees. In doing
this some confusion resulted which
must be cleared up when the next
General Assembly meets.
While the present law Is not what
wanted, I think il is better than no
law at all. 1t has been anniied IN
three congressional primaries. In two
the Sixth and the T'hird-there has
been no complaint.
In the Fourth the real cause of
complaint was not the primary law.
but closeness of the contest. Almost
SsVOV votes We're cast, and, considering
the newness of the law, there were as
tonishlngly few Irregularities and.
these did not affect the result
No Indication of Fraud.
II is most gratifying that there was
absolutely not the slightest indication
OF fraud anywhere. Congressman
IurnbuH and Judge Watson belong
TO the highest types Of Virginia gentle
men and their supporters, / think.
were imbued with the spirit of fair
play.
1T is worthy of notice that the most
OF the controversy in the Fourth Dis
trict was caused not by the primary
law, but by differing constructions of
the Constitution Of 1902
Section 80 of the Constitution SAYS
that no person shall vote at any
lesalized primary unless he is at the
time duly registered and qualified to
vote at the next succeeding election.
1t was therefore, necessary to in
terpret the suffrage clauses of the
Constitution in order to know who
We're legally qualified to vote at the
general election in order to determine
who could vote AT the primary cleo
ton.
me man controversy arose over
section 80 of the Constitution, which
provides for a list of qualifed voters
TO be certified by the treasurer, which
shall be conclusive evidence of the
facts therein stated for the purpose
of voting"
The question arose: Is this
list exclusive as well as con-
elusive? AS TO this opinions Diff
fer The Fourth District Com
nfittee held that it was concfusive-
but not exclusive. That is to saw
II man was on the list his vote
could not be questioned, hut that
II ne was not on the list and
otherwise qualified. ne could vote
on his tax receipts.
both sides acted on this in
fnf lon ~ H.