The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-11-08
MANY lose VOTES
BY FAULTY LISTS
Citizens Kept From Casting Ballots By
Reason of Omissions In
Records.
COURT ASKED FOR RELIEF.
Attorney General Pollard Denies His
Ruling Caused Loss of Vote. Quot
ing Law of State of Virginia On
Subject.

Denied the privilege of voting be-
cause their names did not appear on
the printed lists furnished the judges
of elections by the city trea surer. a
number of Richmond citizens were be-
fore Judge Richardson. of the Hust-
ings Court yesterday. and appealed
to him for relief but the Judge up
held the ruling of Acknowledgement
Pollard that the election law prohibit
ed any person from voting whose
name was not on the books.
Many voters who had paid their
poll taxes for several years, on 60
ing TO the polls yesterday we're re-
fused, the election judges stating that
their names were not on the list. and
that tax receipts could not be recog-
niZed as giving them the right to cast
their ballot Some OF the persons
thus denied were John Stewart Bryan.
James E. Phillips. Rufus Martin. who
obtained special permission from the
University of Virginia to come to
Richmond for the election; Colonel
10 Lane Stern, Magistrate J. T.
Lewis, and others In Ginter Park
alone about twenty-five per cent of
the voters were refused.
City Chairman Clyde W. Saunders
stated that he did not agree with the
ruling OF Mr.. Pollard and that any
citizen that produced tax receipt for
the last three years should be per-
ulitted to vote. The Attorney General
however. said that this could only hold
good concerning persons transferred
from one city or county to another
city or county.
MFR. Bryan Loses Vote.
As q test Of the law, John Stewart
Bryan appealed to the Hastings Court
for a mandamus compelling the Off,
GERS Of his precinct. the Sixth Lee. to
allow him to vote. Represented by
Melvin Flegenheimer. Mr.. Bryan
claimed that he had paid his taxes
for more than twenty years, and de-
clared that he had a right TO vote.
He said that his name had been left
from the lists by no fault OF his own.
Judge Richardson held that the
lists are posted for the inspection Of
citizens. and II Mr.. Bryan's name was
not on the same, he should have ap-
piled TO the courts Because he did
not look over the list proved an in
! fraction Of the law. and the courts
could not give him any redress The
Judges Of elections against whom the
randamus was asked were repre-
scented by Attorney J. c. Duke
Mr.. Bryan stated last night that he
would confer with his attorney today
matter. Under the law. the treasurer
OF the city, j 3, Pace, is liable TO a
fine OF not less than $50, nor more
than 81 1000 for his failure to list the
names properly. On the witness
stand, during the trial yesterday. a
deputy Of Mr. Pace stated that the
names had been left of the lists
through tnadvertence
Attorney-General John Garland
Pollard. IN discussing the matter last
night, said that he could not be held
responsible for the right to vote be-
ing denied the citizens who appeared
before Judge Richardson, but that he
merely stated that the provisions OF
the law. Speaking further. he said
Mr.. Pollard's Statement
Some people through ignorance and
some others through malice circulat-
ed the report on yesterday that an
erroneous ruling Of mine had de-
prived voters OF their legal rights. I
desire to denounce this statement as
absolutely false. The law provides
that the treasurer shall make up
list Of those who have paid their poll
taxes and the said list shall be posted
for thirty days at each voting place,
and that any citizen whose name IL
erroneouiy omitted therefrom may
apply TO the court and have his name
placed on the list. Many cases have
arisen under this law and the courts
have always decided that II a citizen
fails to avail himself Of the remedy
provided by law for tho correction
Of the list he loses his vote. When
I was asked by the judges OF cleo
ton what the law was on the subject