Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1839-12-24

lley transmitted 10 the Governor.
Here, again. there is dispute about facts. II is ad-
mtted that those clerks did not insert those votes in
the certified lists which they sent to the Governor
and that the Governor did them up or count
them.
IL is further admitted all hands that the township
officers OF the polls after they closed, and the clerks O:
the counties in their respective acts mere return
ing officers; and it seems ndisputable that, as SUCH
as well by the laws of New Jersey, they were mere
ministerial officers and is equally indspuablc that
The Governor of the State and his Privy Council in
casting up the votes, mere ministerial oficers:-
but II IS insisted, and not without strong reason that
inasmuch the Governor and Prvy Council were
to determine which six persons had the greatest num-
Der of votes from the whole State, and inasnuch as
the Governor had authority 10 procure the certified
lists of the whole votes Of each county, if not sent BY
sending express for the purpose before he laid
them before the Prvy Council, that en ri tcrmni he
had authority to determine whether the certified list
which the clerks choose to send contained full or
only partial return of the of the whole county
or not, and delay his action until full returns were
Procured according to the provisions of the law OF
the State and that until they were thus procured
they could not cast up the whole votes of the whole
State, and OF course, could not determine what
'six persons had the greatest number of votes of the
whole State. But whether the Governor was right
or wrong in his decision upon this question: he decided
that as the clerks had sent mutlated returns he could
not look beyond them, but bound BY the law of the
State to cast up only the votes which the clerks had
thus transmitted to him. Upon this state Of the facts
the Governor acted, and his commission is founded
The controversy before the Governor and Prvy Coun-
Gil, in New Jersey, was narrowed down to the single
question: whether under the sound construction Of the
law of ~ Jersey, the Governor bound or even au-
thorzed, to send express to the delinquent clerks
and procure the omitted returns which, it was admitted
on all hands, then in their respective Offices before
casting up the votes &c. The Governor and Council
gave such construction to the law restrained them
from procuring the omitted returns and virtually
decided that the electors of the townships-of Melville
in the county of Cumberland, and South Amboy, in the
county of Mddesex, should not be entitled to the right
of suffrage enjoyed BY the other citizens of the State
in choosing their Representatives An election had
been held IN those townships the times places and
in the manner, prescribed by law. The electors had
done their duty by casting their for men of their
choice Those votes had been duly returned to the
clerks Of their respective countless if not within the
time prescribed BY law, within few hours thereafter
If the Legislature of New Jersey had declared By law
that the electors of those townships should not vote in
the choice of Representatives in Congress- or that their
votes should not be counted or that they should for
any cause whatever, lose their right Of suffrage such
act should have been unconstitutional and void If
the Legislature had by law declared that the electors
of those townships should forfeit their rights of su
age for Representatives, by reason Of the ignorance
neglect or fraud Of the officers Of the township polls