Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1855-07-19

De'i'ersi :. .ts 81 Board u Aias,s.ss On he isA

DetHeJf" - Hec bVufa ~ AfUefmcH on tUe lOtN
instant, 81 the Contested Elections.
Mr.. PRHsIDRsr Aftet much trouble, and tbs
iaetious Opposition OF the opposing DO ,acal osrty
!, .n's board, W have succeeded n having the
El I ''e feelings Of the Committee on
= read,
rhore ara but two points in that journal 10
which desire to call the attention Of the mem.
berh.
lst., It win be observed that the gentleman ma
king the minority report (Dr Mller) makes fire.
euent reference to the Constitution of the United
States. E.EN IA
3D. That in all his motions, In reference TO the
Charter Of this oity, he employs the words as in
terpreted by the Circuit Court OF this District"
The gentleman thus admits that the Charter is
susceptible of another construction differing from
that Of the Court. He seeks 10 bind the commit
tee to an Interpretation which may favor the con-
testant, 81. O. Fitzpatrick, and exhibits an unwl
ingness TO permit the committee 70 exercise their
own judgment in regard to the facts and the law
involved In the consideration OF the matter be-
fore them. In his minority report he distinctly
charges the majority with premeditated determi-
nation, with bfearanged plan Of awarding the
seat to the sitting member, (myself) no matter
what might have been the facts or the law. He,
sir. Is amenable to a similar charge. His entire
course while 10 committee clearly warrants the
inference that his judgment was forestalled.
presume that no one will deny that this Board
is the only tribunal which can determine the elgi-
bility Of any person. the legality Of the election
of any of its members. We find in the 9th sec
ton Of the Charter Of 1920, the following Ian
guage; J..
And each Board shall Judge Of the Legality of
the elections, returns, and qualifications Of its own
members"
Then, sir if the Board is the only tribunal which
can determine this question, the Committee OF
Elections, representing the Board certainly have
right to form an opinion upon the matters referred
TO them; and where the organic law constitutes
them Judges of the facts and the law, that opinion
must be in accordance with their honest convic-
tons Of right and justice And, sir, cannot they
differ with the gentleman tDr. Miller) and yet be
as honest as he? They, as he, act under the SOL
emn sanction of an oath, and doubtless are as con-
scientious as that gentleman, or any other member
Of this Board
Let us now, sir, examine into the duties and
qualifications of the Commissioners OF Election.
Section 9th, of the Charter of 1920, reads as fol-
lows: aa
"The said Commissioners SHALL before they re-
ceive any ballots severally take an oath or afiir
nation, to be administered by some justice of the
peace for the county Of Washington, truly and
faithfully to receive and return the votes Of such
persons as are by law entitled to vote for members
of the Board Of Aldermen and Common Council,
in their respective wards according to the best Of
their Judgment and understanding, and not know
ingy to receive or retain the vote of any person
who Is not legally entitled to the same
Thus you perceive the Commissioners are quasi
judges, land so the court has decided) of the legal
right of any person to vote and they are to de-
eide 'accordng to the best of their Judgment and
understandings" The freedom Of opinion and the
right of thought is strictly er,joined upon them,
and il their Judgment and understanding" is in
conformity with proper appreciation Of the sol
emn obligation, and conscientious sense OF duty,
we must abide by their decision. They are to de-
termine the right of any person to vote, and their
decision is final. The minority report threatens
the Commissioners with the law. If the persons
whose votes have been rejected feel aggrieved, I'M
doubtedly that is the proper course 70 pursue
They are quasi judges aud if judges are legally
responsible for their decisions, they may be held
responsible Then let the aggrieved parties pro-
coed in due course of law.
Ii has been said, and will be again said, by some
one Of the opposite political party, that all the
Commissioners did not acquiesce in the decision,
rejecting the votes Of those persons who were nat
uralized subsequent to the 3lst Of December, and
Barry, the anti-American Commissioner, kept list
of prior to the ensuing election in june Edmund
the names ofthose persons whose votes were reject
ed under this decision He acquiesced in the deci-
sion, is fully proven by the following certificate
of his associates. 2
"WAsHIsGroN, June 81, 1855.
"This is to certify that we, James A. Brown and
VIM. p Ferguson, two Of the Commissioners Of
the election held on the 4th instant, in tho Fifth
Ward, did not regard the list Of names Seventeen
in all) kept by Edmund Barry, one Of the Commis-
sioners OF said election aud certified TO by us m
~ IF, Ind; 81
ed at said election as any part OF said election
turns; that I'VE signed said list at the request of
Edmund Barry, and as personal favor 70 him,
without any expectation that he or any other per
son would claim said list as part of the returns
aWe do further certify, that Edmund Barry aid
acquiesce in all the decisions made respecting all
points raised 10 regard to the qualifications Of vo
tiers, nor did he contend at any time that the per
sons whose names are ON said list were entitled TO
vote, nor did he claim said list as part of said
election returns.
GAN Of the above we are willing to certify to I'M
der oath. JAMES A. BROWN,
. w. p. FERGUSON
make no allegation against Edmund Barry
know him well, and do not mean TO impute TO him
any improper purpose; but he, together with his
associates, signed the election returns, made out
IN due form and according TO the Charter and the
law, which election returns give TO the sitting
member (myselO majority Of Ia, aud every vote
cast for the sitting member is admitted by tho con-
testant and the committee TO be legal, but the
contestant (J. @. Htzpatrick) claims as part OF
the returns the list Of the names Of the persons
whose votes we're rejected by the Commissioners.
The Commissioners say It is no part Of the returns.
II is private memorandum, kept by Edmund Bar
ry and by him handed 10 the contestant. If this
is part Of the returns, he has been derelict in
duty, by permitting the returns 10 be made out as
they have been. But, sir, he acquiesced In the
decision, signed the returns, and we have not the
slightest testimony either from him or any other
person TO sustain the claim Of the contestant, viz
that this list Of names is part Of the returns
On the day succeeding the day Of an election,
the returns required by the Charter TO be made
TO the Mayor. THE list of names, not having been
returned 10 him, would by the Charter be ex-.
cluded.) lie canvasses the votes, and issues, in
pursuance Of thclaw, proclamation declaring who
are elected. In accordance with this, the Register
issues the certificate Of election. That certificate
hold What is its valuei II entities the person
holding ID TO the seat until it Is proven otherwise.
And now, sir, we come TO the consideration Of the
testimony and proof presented by the contestant
to sustain his claim 10 the seat held by myself
Here is his petition in part: