The Trinity times., 1855-08-25

In their discretion decline to administer In,
ih. But they have no right to require the
production OF the certificate Of naturalization
because the statute expressly provides lower
STANDARD of evidence as sufficiently enabling
And when in the exercise of their disere.
ti"n The Judges have once administered the
OATH and l. has been taken, the right to vote
Is concluded, and it is error to DENY il. The
party swearing falsely and voting without
right is punishable under the provisions OF
the Criminal Code, sud that alone is intended
rs u remedy.
W hile al important part Of the object Of
the election law is to guard the ballot box
against Illegal voters, it is I'M equally mpor-
tant iealsre 60 sirnpiy and facilitate the pro.
cess ofvoiing, aud this could not &c sreeess-
fully Effected il resort was to be had ia every
case of challenge Of u voter TO trial rcqui.
ing the highest order Of evidence ard an in
spccl0n OF written and sealed certificates in
volvlng an inquiry into their genuiteness, ob.
lect'ons to their form aud all the varions Iii
gous points whflsti are usual in a trial at law.
The judgment lie reversed.
liEYDENFELDT, J.
concur MURRAY. c. J.
The above decision settlea the more diff
cult questions arising in tho course of the du
ties Of a Board of Insbec,0rs of Election.
|, rs clear an arbitrary rule cannot be sci
up by the Board in advance And it is
equally settled that before an oath is ten
dered the Board must make such inquiries
or DC placed il possession Of such facts as
will enable them 10 exercise their discretion
in regard to the propriety or improprety Of
must be exercised in each case before the
Board have the right to administer it, dis
cretiOn cannot be exercised unless the Board
have satisfactory information. For instance.
if il is clear from any circumstance that the
applicant is not a native of the United States,
the law raises presumption against clt-
zcnship, and unless the applicant provides hs
certificate or satisfactorily accounts for lis alb
sence, it would be no exercise of discretion
to admins er the oath, but on the other hand
would be gross violation Uf the letter and
spirit Of The law.
Ylie Board should be satisfied that tho ap
plicant knows what constitutes citizensllips,
aud knows what steps are necessary to be
taken to acquire it before they decide 10 take
bis oath in regard 10 it.
No witness is permitted TO give evidence
of facts Of which he has i:.:: 'sn,iicient know
ledge 10 speak the truth Nor will The law
permit any person to give evidence 10 prove
- establish proposition that is. absurd aud
impossible.
The above decision settles the law that
when vote is challenged, and the challenge
is not withdrawn, tie Board have a right TO
they have no right to administer the oath
until sufficient facts are brorght to ther
knowledge to convince them u the pr'priell
of administering it; in other words, facts
sufficient TO enable to judge whether !, is Il
proper case to take the oath Of the person
offering his vote.
IL would be no more an eSercne oi dscre.
ton or Judgment to permit The party to be
sworn, when lhey know nothing abont his
case, than it woGfd be TO reject the vote per
emptory becanse he did not prodcce the GER
tfcate Of citizenship.
70 exercise a snunt judicial discretion be
fore administering the oath, based upon sufi
cien, facts 10 convince them Of the proprety
of that course, il a duty the Board cannot
avoid or shrink from without being guilty Of
a gross neglect Of duty and doing violence to
ia, ir Olc,ai oath IL