Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1922-06-27
WRONG CONSTRUCTION
PLACED ON STATE LAW
Declares Elections Committee
Ruled in Variance to Vir-
ginia Authorities.
WINCHESTER CONTEST CITED
Hepublicnns Win In Municipal Fight
by Same Votes Held Invalid
In ConRress Fight.
Ispeoisl 10 The Timcs-DIspalch.l

Especial to The Times Dispatch
WASHlSGTOS. June o6-Assailing &
tho report of the majority as one
differing from any heretofore sub
mittcd for the rejection OF a certiH-
cate Of election" the minority mem
bers OF House Elections Committed
No today filed minority report
In the contested election case OF John
Paul vs. Representative Thomas w
Harrison. OF the Seventh Virginia
District
The minority report concludes
with the resolution that Mr.. Paul
was no; elected TO Congress. and
that Representative Harrison Is en-
titled 10 his seat. The majority re.
port. say the three minority mem
bers OF the commlttec--Repres
tires Hudspcth. Of Texas: Gilbert. o,
Kentucky. and Bulwinklc. Of North
Carolina--Sivcs TO Virginia election
laws construction entirely al vari-
ance with tho construction OF cleo
ton officials o: Virginia. and would
nisquhlify voters who have been
puaiihcd voters in that State for tho
past fourteen years. Both parties
the minority report says have been
active in obtaining the registration
or suCh voters.
same People Voted In wfpche.,.,
II il commentary upon this ma
,ority report" said the minority
that on The very day the report was
hled tho Republicans in the city n.
Winchester. Va. elected their mu.
nicipal ticket by tho very vote, q,
those persons whom this report dc.
nounces as disqualified voters"
summary of the minority renor,
follows:
First. The majori,y at each pre-
cinct' by It's ruling. disfranchises a
very large percentage OF the voters
about whose registration and thelr
right TO assistance no question can
be raised They were registered
prior 10 1904. and were entitled 10
vote with or without assistance
Testimony Vague.
Second Hundreds OF others. who
registered properly. according 10 the
views Of ihc majority. and cast their
paIlot without assistance, arc dis
franchiscd on the vagucst testimony
or assistance OF some vague kind 20
some unidentified voters. or because
some did not make proper applica
tion. In many OF the precincts the
challenged vote proved to have
voted is very small compared to the
unchallenged vote
Third The majority ruled tina,
che parties were confined to the
names set UP in the notice and
answer and denied the right TO prove
that any one voted for contestant
by circumstances. The result was
reached that the very persons set
up in the answer as having voted
for contestant and proved by strong,
uncontradictcd evidence to have so
voted under the proportionate rule
were counted as having voted for
contestee.
Contrary to Judges Decision.
Fourth. Contrary TO the Virginia
Constitution and contrary to the de-
cision OF Judge McLemore. empha-
sized by his letter, the majority
holds that mere written applica.
ton. though in no wise complying
with the requirements of Virginia
law, is sufficient. and. without a writ
ten application. is void.
Fifth. Hundreds of names not In
his notice were introduced in evide dence
by contestant In his own time and hun
dreds of others in contestee's time
and at his expense. Furthermore.
Continued on Page 3. Column IS