Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1920-01-29
] Commonwealth's Attorney
Shackelforo Loses by
Three Votes
CONTEST WAS BITTER
Norfolk Delegation Split on Two
Candidates-Tw0 Other Judges
Nominated Yesterday.

Richmond, Jan. 29.-Follow!ng ore
of the most closely contested fights
ever staged in the hall of the house
of Delegates, w. H. Sergeant, Jr., OF
Norfolk, was last night nominated to
be judge of the Corporation Court of
the city of Norfolk by joint Demo
. cratic caucus of the Senate and House
of the Virginia General Assembly. Mr..
Sergeant received forty-eight votes
to his opponents forty-five. He was
opposed by 0. L. Shackeford, Com
monwealth's attorney of Norfolk city.
SO close was the vote and SO un-
certain was the result that a third
confirmation of the ballotting was ne
cessary. :
Judge James L. McLcmore was
nominated to succeed himself as judge
cf the Second Judicial Circuit Of Vir-
ginia, and Judge Allen R. Hanckel
present judge of the Corporation
Court of Nonfclk city, was elevated
to the beAch of the newly created
Thirty-sesond Judicial Circuit.
Colonel Sergeant was nominated by
Delegate Dodgon and the nomination
was seconded by delegate Cherry,
who denied any connection with eff
forts to discredit Mr. .Shackelford
who was nominated by Senator Deal
and whose nomination had half doz-
EN- or more seconds. !. 80 (: - : 's'' Z
Mr.. Shackelford was indorsea BY
the Bar Association of Norfolk ard
Portsmouth and by number Of ether
organizations.
Delegate GERRY bespoke fer his
candidate the votes of his colleagues
in the House on the ground of par
|lian,ertary courtesy.
Delegate Robert o. Norris, of Ian
caster in seconding the nomination
of Mr.. Shackeford, stated that he
was not in accord with the inte:pre-
tation Of Delegate Cherry, of House
courtesy, and read The petition of the
Bar Association of Norfolk, which
was; addressed to the Norfolk city
delegates, the reading of which, the
delegate from Lancaster reminded the
Norfolk city Representatives, more
properly should have been done by
them.
Mr.. Norris produced petitions which
he asserted demonstrated beyond
doubt that Mr. .Shackelford, and not
Mr.. Sergeant, was she choice of the
people Of Norfolk. House courtesy,
he declared, does not extend to the
point where it prevents the people
from getting the man they want. He
challenged not only the delegates
from Norfolk, but the Senator from
the City by the Sea to release every
member of House or Senate who had
pledged their vote to any particular
candidate. Senator Deal accepted the
ultimatpm, and release of those
pledged to the candidate whose cause
was espoused by the Norfolk dele
gates was tacit.
Senator Eppes, of Notto~ay, IN sec
pnding the nomination, of Mr.. Shack
elford, declared that the case of the
people Of Norfolk, who desired the
present Commonwealth's attorney
had been made out, but, notwlth
standing the fact that those who ad
vocated the cause of Mr.. Sergeant hae
been given ample opportunity, the!
had failed to- make a case.
Delegate R. Lindsay Gordon, o:
Louisa, alluded to disagreement of th'
Norfolk Representation as "a hous'
divided against itself and told HI:
colleagues that the matter of g choic!
s;mmeled down to an impartial con
federation Of the evidence and ever.
nan voting according to the dictate:
bf his own conscience.
Senator Downing, of Lancaster, wit
seconded the nomination of MI
phaekelford, deprecated the abuse 0
House courtesy and declared that
such thing .. blotting the VIII 9
he people existed it should be don
lway with. he denied the right 9
Ehs Norfolk city Sslsgatss to nam
|h. Judge Of the, Corporation Cou,