The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-10-16

would have been thrown out, working
to a gain of eight for Turnbuil.
Mr.. Baford then contended that the
Dinwiddis county vote should be
thrown out because independents had
voted in that county. The Byrd Law
requires that to be eligible 10 vote
in n primary the voter must have
supported the Democratic ticket In
the preceding election or have re-
Trained from voting at all. said MIR.
Buford. and yet many who had voted
for the independent candidate for the
house of delegates and against the
Democratic candidate voted for Wat
son. He used Guns Hin precinct as
an illustration, saying that here fif-
teen men who had voted for Thrift.
the Independent candidate. voted for
Watson
In conclusion Mr.. Bufcrd contend
ed that under the law the negro had
a right to vote and that by throwing
out eight negro votes in Brunswick
Turnbun was deprived of that many
votes and lost seven votes In all. az
only one negro vote for Watson was
thrown out. He cited, also, "A num-
Der Of instances In which those whu
were not registered and who had not
paid their poll taxes were allowed to
vote.
MIR. Byrsi's Argument.
In reply Mr.. Byrd, for Judge Wat
son, stated that in all elections there
must be few Irregularities. and in
this case they Were found on both
sides, but neither had charged fraud.
Taking up Mr.. Buford's arguments
in order. MIR. Byrd first went into the
committees decision as to how the
ballots should be counted. lie de-
ciaTed that the law should be fol-
lowed, but that the Byrd primary law
declared that liberal construction
be placed upon its provisions. That
tho election law providing tN9t -
ballot must be scratched three-fourths
the length of the name becomes
part of the primary law. which says
that the election law must be applied
when not inconsistent with the pri-
mary law. he admitted, but contended
that when the election law provision
became a part of the primary Law the
primary law provision for a. liberia
Interpretation applied. From this he
commended that tina district committee
was right In deciding To seek the in
tentton of tho voter, In counting the
contested ballots, and not to adhere
to the strict letter Of the law, which
provided that ali ballots not scratched
through three-fourths Of the name
should be thrown out.
MIR. Byrd denied that the Byrd
law intended to give the negro the
right to vote and argued that II does
not. II provides certa n restrictions.
he said, and the district committee
had the right to impose others. He
called attention to what he termed
the inconsistency of counsel for Turn
bun in charging In his petition that
negroes and Republicans voted for
Watson and then coming before the
committee and contending that ne
groes had the right to vote.
As to the voting of those not on
the registration books Mr.. Byrd said
that had the law been interpreted
str city Turnbull would have lost more
than Watson. He stated that in
/ Brunswick IS who were not regis
| tered voted for Turnbull while in Not
toway thirteen nonregistered men are
claimed to have voted for Watson. "A
strict Interpretation of the law here, y
said Mr.. Byrd would have given us
! 20 more votes than we now have" He
claimed that more irregularities were
found in Brunswick than in Nottoway
! Mr.. Byrd concluded with a tribute
| TO both cand dates and to the Fourth
district committee.
go Concluding Arguments.
! r. H. Mann, of Petersburg fol-
lowed for Judge Watson. Mr.. Mann