The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-08-10
TALK OF FRAUD" IN THE PRIMARY.

Whenever somebody is defeated or disappoint-
ed in election the cry OF fraud" Is raised
We are having II already in connec-
ton with the primary of last Tuesday, and
from both sides of the one close contest Mr.
Poard's friends. here and there. are whispering
shouting. with some evidences OF hysteria
that returns are being held back for the purpose
of defeating him or reducing his plurality
Judge Williams representatives express dark
doubts Of the conditions in Lee county, in the
far Southwest, jammed against the Kentucky
line, where in normal conditions big majority
for Williams might have been expected, and
which Ia reported to have gone against him by
more than 400
Fools disregard facts, the ignorant refuse to
know them. men who have made themselves
drunk with prejudice or passion attempt to walk
over them, like an inebriate trying to go through
a barbedwire fence. Sensible people consider
facts and try to Judge from them. 1t may be
true. as Judge Williams supporters say that the
Lee county Democratic chairman, a defeated
applicant for school superintendent, appointed
Judges Of election known to be anti-Wiliams.
Yet in the country in Virginia judges of election
usually are men OF character and responsibility.
Conditions are different from those of the cities
Especially in the counties where the population
is almost entirely white, as in Lee, country
election judge necessarily is intimate with all
his neighbors. who know all about him. The
people also know each other and everybody
knows how everybody else voted. False counting
and stufing of'the ballot boxes practically is i'm
possible, The truth is, a large number of peo-
pie In Lee were dissatisfied with the selection
of school superintendent Judge Williams head
was the first they could reach to express their
dissatisfaction. There were acrimonious public
disputes the question whether the man chosen
or the man defeated the preference of the
majority of the Democrats. The election in that
county was not so much between Williams and
Pollard as 1t to decide whether the choice
of school superintendent should be endorsed or
condemned at the polls All OF us know how
bitter and active local fight can be made In
this case Judge Williams was the goat It is
said that angered friends of the defeated
didate for superintendent rode the county, urg-
ing all who thought the man had been treated
to prove that the Democrats there had preferred
him to express themselves by voting for Mr..
Pollard. The candidate defeated by the board
was the stronger with the people. He
won great victory and vndcation. and Incl
dgntarfy Judge Tttftarf1s ioEr goIne- 500 VOTES,
which might have elected him.
For the delay in the returns of which Mr..
Pollards friends complain the explanation is
equally obvious. With contest for COVER
nor and in many instances no local contests or
issues. the people had no interest In the cleo
ton and did not realize that anybody else was
There are reports from several coun-
ties OF polling places not even opened because
the judges forgot 1t was election day or it was
evident that nobody cared to take the trouble
to vote. We have reports of precincts at which