Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1928-04-07
JUDGE CRGMP MEETS THE
ISSUE

-Saran N. bOlCOp.
JUDGE CRGMP MEETS THE
ISSUE
It was admitted that the demurrer
filed by that brilliant representative
of the legal department Of Virginia
Leon M. Bazile, Assistant Attorney
General of Virginia, in the Law ant
Equity Court, Friday, March S0th
would cause the Gaze to go off,, SO
to speak, without going into the
merits of the contention. Evidently
Judge Beverly T. Crump, before
whom the suit was pending brushed
aside all technicalities and delvet
into the merits of the case, settling
for all time, so far as he was con.
cerned the issues involved.
One of the points raise by the
defense was that the judges, against
whom action was sought, are not
formally sworn in and 60 not enter
upon their duties as officers of the
State until the morning of the
election. Accordingly, i writ OF
mandamus against them would not
lie. Judge Crump said.
This petition ia based upon the
fourteenth and ffteeath amendments
TO the National Constitution, which
provide there shall be no discr NINA.
ton against citizen on account OF
race, color or previous condition OF
servitude. The application of these
amendments in general as to the
franchise rights Of colored citizens
is well establ shed. The results are
that these amendments must be
givsn full effect and where State
officers make such discrimination,
relief can be used.
"This case, however, relates to the
primary election, and 1t is well
known that while primaries are reg
ulated to some extent by law, pri.
mary elections d fer materially from
general elections. This was estab.
lished in the Newberry case.
This means that thi Jurist had
delved into the Federal law upon
the subject. One side quoted the
Texas case and the other the New.
berry case. Both constituted rul
ing upon this embarrassing primary
law. 1t tends too to show that the
action of the United States Senate
in dealing with the Smith case from
Illinois and the Ware certificate Of
election from Pennsylvania was
revolutionary and unlawful. Ir
dealing with the Virginia primary
law, he says: e
but to Observation-Disclosures
plan, II IL we'll known that politics!
parties formerly used conventions
to a great exten. Later, whom pri'
vate primaries were resorted to, they
were. conducted, privately within the
parties. Frequently there was dis
order, and hence the States estab.
lished a. primary law The primary
low does not interfere with the
rights of u party to hold o primaly
or convention. 1t directs that the
officers of primary elections shall be
officers Of tho law, but It does not
restrict palt.es to prescribe party
rules. 1t is, clear that parties con
.duc1ipg primaries under this law
have the came rights as to making
laws as they had before the law was
adopted. They, may say who may
vote IN the primary.
The order issued Is as follows:
"Th's day came James o. wess
and aled his petition praying for q
writ ~ mandamus in acc0rdancs
VT .erms,-- and thereHpon the
respondents appeared by their attor-
new 40 A'ed their joint demurrer
to the petition. and likewise their
answer thereto whereupon the 20
ttioDer Joined in the said demurrer
and the same was argued before and
submitted to the court. And the
court being Of opinion that the do
NAL of the right to, vote at the pri'
mary election mentioned In the
petition Is not q discrimination
against the petitioner on account OF
color nor a denial to him OF the
exercise Of. the elective franchise,
within the amendment OF either the
fourteenth or fifteenth amendment
to the Constitution of the United
States, doth sustain the defendants
demurrer on The first ground as
signed therein. ... go.
ut is accordingly ordered that the
said petition be dismissed with costs
r. What are the facts and what is
the law? The statute reads:
Nothing in this chapter shall be
construed to limit or circumscribe
the power of any political party to
prescribe the rules and regulations
for its own government and to de-
itermine its own methods Of making