New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-11-16

IN put whole hsndful Of votes II. sheriff int the
box n election dist iut, would they then az su-
I pney ard count them. The law req iired ths' the
rejected ballots should be appended 70 ths return. Sup
pose bst hundred tnous and woes we're given
Tor joseph II. Too and were no. counted because he
spelled his Tone snd he inspectors had thrown
sFsy those woes instead OF a1pendrg hem; how
thenl TIE Law presumed Il q, il made no difference
bow name wss spelled ii he soInd was only prs
served. The fast was ths they dida want 70 90 be-
bind the returns hu they were 70 20 up 10 The re-
tuin snd 10 walk Tito 'usm-in.o the ooses o ihem;
they gtre pct to - ue 2 clIks 20 n inspectors lie
should ink so beLofsbis vO1li .;le' b9 toad
and live on he vapors of dungeon IN IN slca
machine. The bo3T no pore s1biec; 20 he courts
than the courts wee 10 he bpsri They 0nls 10
act il ACCORDANCE with tbei duty d their 5igO'y
Here fsud was ales ed proof offered, the ffa ID
Dot deuid, but they we're toll Z a ley Should
have 10 opportunity to biit forward hex proofs
All that they asked war thst they sfol % prn tel
the SANE privileges which would be al)Hed In case
forged return were presente
LORENZO b SHrp.RD said thst if be bal had an
opportunity be should have employed counseii a. u
was be would be Obliged 10 rely % ms me n1y ol BIS
law. Had this case involved five dollars would De
necessary 70 brig W specific aleSauon o; ira1l
But here nothing but me e general ale Estoo
Of fraud, and they were expsc'od TO meet tins very
faf " allegation He would igfO~m bis Irie al la' 70
quo narrdnto wss sbOlsbfd nv the code, and that the
mode of ing for him a specified one and
had pieoedeuts He tn sbked God that they could -
behind the returns and be demanded tha they
in The Supreme court where alone u could 0e 1e
The question whether they had the gh on account
of he Negligence of the Inspectors 10 throw away The
sots of legal voters /, was cl9et IN 81 this bosrt
shouo hsve power Of appe late iur' cIiOn flo the
ward caLvtssers without sht1Ow OF Law. bow
could es'imony be pr)3uced hes-! The board lad
70 POWER 10 conpe the AZ enhance Of witnesses, ani
sfhdavis could nos be ejmit &c IN any uii. Mr..
Shepard pro edsd 30 quc.e on tas eech1n law u
Prove that the board hsd ~ rgh. % q bshl a IN
retwps, De,leriog tbs. Ia office Of the blsld vas
4. =, TO- a u 4 2 A
books out II the giel- pile al l4V elf that lay
before him 10 prove that IL cssss o. fraui o.
itfomali,y, tie inspector s1ou d De pun
ishea, but the votes should ~. pc ttfo yn
out thst the orocen. should 10 be punished for the
sske of eeitiog st TIE guilty He sad hat when III
l. arI ed gel ooDplimented the b1s'd on benS NOR
than mers ma ines in this mater, he uaderesnlted
the good of the board and he overostnatad ies
vanity He believed that board would not be swsrge |
ffo lts Guty il armed men were 81 It's doors lu
a csse which bad been tried in this room vnen those
udses of the Supreme court sat where the chairman
ros did all OF one psrty. aud the mayor also Of she
some party, had aspeared in argument JUST e hai
been viz dcaed contrary to their psry preference.
He trusted the board would manifest similar disregard
OF parry feeling.
Mr. CURTIS NOYEs said in reply that this vas =
mere question of fraud and that party issues should
have nothing to do with it. lie would show that IN
Il ose other States from which cases hat been ctci
by Mr. Shepard the Election law was qnte different.
BY decision in Mich. an, which had been cited, II
was decided that votes for usn by any other than
lis full reme ,oud rot be counted for him although it
should be proved that the Intention Of the vOt-
ing was 10 vote for the miu. 1t was quite dit
erept in New York. Other cases cited were
su,ifct 10 fhe San G remarks. 1ney were irree-
want. Why was it that the Board Of Supervisors
net Ike a parliament or legislature II
they had only TO add up column of figures. II was
that they should go 70 all possible souc-s Of Inform
ton 70 ascertain the aithfuness OF the returns The
greatest possible safeguards were thrown about the
election. The po-list returned, the statement 81
the result and the original statement handed 10 by the
supervi OF. These could be compared. II tbs board
restricted 10 the paper brought up oy the suery-
sor why were these o.her papers to be fled lie
had an sdavit in bis pocket TO show that in one case
who're the poll let showed only two thousand and
tweI tytwo votes candidate had two thousand hYe
turCTed votes In another case the inspectors ha1
made one set of returns and filed in The clerks oca,
and had made auoher for the supervisor snd bstween
thtf;wo there was discrepancy OF four hundred or
five hundred votes. Tney had in one case sac 1red
the post it not hgvng been hed N ne ele sns
bundis cd and five hundred votes. In another, after
the return bad been deposited in the clerks Office, 1t
taken back by the INSPECTORS voluntarily, or At
tie suggestion Of csLoidate the friend of candi
date and when it came back agal there was a
char &c there too Of four hundred or five hundrei
yOits. Mr.. NOyes then went on To quote M7ssachu-
sets law in favor of his position that such cases could
be locked into by boards OF caLvassers Were those
genuire returns which did not agree with the poll
ists filed or the clerks Office or the poll lists kept
behind This was a question involving the purity
of the elective f.auchiae and the OILY Object should
be 70 ascertain the expressed will OF plurality
OF The electors The statute had Ia no place,
our deeiticus he'd % book ever held, that
thee we've TO be final and conclusive. Tois,
re submitted, was q strong argument in his
favor The election statute not to be construed
too narrowly it OILY required free aud liberal nei-
preaon 10 admit the intention of the electors. The
gentleman bad said that they had means OF nvea-
ii. atiop He had pointed out means, and II was the
Inherent right of every legal tribunal to bring Wit
nesses before IT. TO all means necessary TO the full
fllment of s DUTY. Ii they had not the right to com
pel the a,endsr of witnesses, sill Witnesses might
be brought voluntarily; means might he taken TO
bring them. But they bad the right TO compel the
attendance of Witnesses The statute gave the chalr-
an of the Board of Supervisors power 20 admniser
an oath on any business which might come before
them and this was the Board of Supervisors acting
e. offcio az Board of County Canvassers
Mr.. EvART suggested thst the Board OF County
Cenyesseis was by 10 means board OF supergi.ors;
indeed it need rot have q single supervisor in IT. 1t
might be composed entirely Of assessors. II It were
the Board of Supervisors, the mayor and recorder
would have right to sit here.
Mr. MOVES fell back on the necessity OF the board
having the right and with that concluded bis argu-
ment.
The board adjourned until to-day al II a. m.