The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-01-07
Attorney Ely Discusses
Recent ELECTION Probe
in Lee County.
DECLARES PROPER
STEPS NOT TAKEN
Thinks 1t Doubtful Whether
Amy of Indicted Men Can Be
Punished-Suggests That
Legislature Amend Code SO
That Effective Action
May Be Taken.
Especial to The Times Dispatch

Bristol Va. January 5.-lIaving re-
tired from Office Of commemorative
Attorney Of Lee county on December
! 81. NJ. g. Ely, who assisted tho court
| in probing into the election corrup-
tons IN that county. has just issued
a statement III which Ia takes an
opposite view from that held by-
Judge Skecn. and declares il exceed
| ingly doubtful whether any of the in
dicted men can. be punished under the
circumstances.
The laws under which it is souyi,t
| to punish Offenders he declares to hc
defective nd not adequate TO meat
| the demands OF tbs situation. Ills
stat cnicnt follows:
AS my term OF onicc rs Common
day Of December, 1911. JUS. after SO
much excitement In Lee county, re-
sulting from the investigation Of the
| reccn election by tho grand Jury with
reference TO corrupt practices ana
bribery, / feel 1 am more at liberty
to express my opinion OF the facts, cir
cunstanccs and situation than when
l held the office.
While ! am heartily In sympathy
with he movement TO purify elections
In Virginia. | have serious doubts as
| taken with reference to the investi-
CATION in Lee county. because II came
somewhat too much as a surprise in
the nature OF storm: and now, after
reelection and tho calm, the methods
used arc being condemned BY great
many of the best people OF the county.
| LEGALITY In Doubt.
| "Qt the III indictments made by the
recent grand jury o: Leo county, IN
| m ~ nj nj mn nf
! PREPARED iii s,i2h a nay that th~ir lie
| EaitN IS chscured and in doubt. Nom
bcrs OF the Grand jury now disput .
| with one enothcr as 10 what they did.
and their authority for IT, What /
turtle. mean bi this Is: That We
have two separate laws under which
our circuit Judge attempted TO pro-
coed, combine and reach results.
First We have what is known AS
the Barksdalc pure election law. pass
ed by the Legislature OF i9o2-s- {.
The object of which was 10 promote
pure elections and to prevent bribery.
etc. Under section Il Of that act 1t
is made unlawful for a candidate. or
his adierents and friends. with his
knowledge and consent, to pay or in
any way use money to Influence voters
in behalf OF candidate.
Section o. of that &C; makes 8,
unla wful for any person TO pay, use
I or eXpend money TO influence voters
IN behalf of candidate. and fixes
the penalty for both sections at Il
than $1,000, or confinement in Jail not
less than one month nor more than
twelve.
"Sectio o of that act originally
read: The statement Of any person
ltestifying under this act shall not be
used against him in any way
ut is admitted that the Barksdale
act was intended to indict and punish
the man or candidate who furnished
the money and bought votes but
under that act the vote-seller could
not he indicted or punished. II was,
therefore, necessary to make the wit
ness out of the vote-scller to indict
and convict any one under the Banks
dale act. and that Is why. In my opIn-
ion. section of tho Barksdale act
was amended by the acts OF the Cen
cral Assembly nf 1905. and now reads:
No witness giving evidence in my
| prosecution or other proceeding,
under this act Chat is. tho Barksdale
acD should he ever proceed against
for any offcnsc against this act or
against the other election laws COM
United by him at or in connection With
the same election This is complete
immunity to tho vote-seller under this
and the bribery statute both. but not
to the buyer under either.
| Act Not prond Enough.
az do not believe that the act is
broad enough to afford complete i'm
munity from punishment because II
doss not say, as In the gamSins nst;
to testify, and our Court Of Appeals
has passed upon what is known as the
gambling act. and in that case sus-
tains the opinion. that the witness can
he compelled to testify when complete
immunity from punishment is guaran-
teed. The reason for the amendment
that a loater or vote-seiler might be
compelled to testify under that act and
yet be liable to prosecution under the
bribery statute. II 1t should apply to
the Barksdale law then becomes n dead
letter. IT we exempt tho man who
furnishes the money and the vote
enysr from nnIishmen1 under the
convict or punish. and the law Is a
when our circuit Judge first i'm
paneled the. grand Jury ne meant to
run the Barksdale act and the bribery
statute together (although he Instruct
ed the grand Jurors on bothl and 70
friend who furnished the money and
the vote-seller, but to exempt from
punishment the middleman or the
worker on the. field. But not getting
results from that course of investiga-
ton. and witnesses refusing to testify
before the grand Jury. claiming they
did not have to testify. because they
would incriminate themselves. he 10.
everybody but the vote-seiler.
Indictments Under Code.
"It Is admitted that this vote clio,
cannot be indicted or prosecuted under
tho Bark8dale law, uNhen lunher xuha a.
statute do you prosecute hiTnP THE
statute under which the TAI inAjrt.