The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1858-04-10

Letter from John b. Brisbin, Esq, Au.
thor OF the Poll Book.
To the Editors of the Minnesotian:
GENTLEMEN: I'm your issue of this morn.
ing, under the caption Of Forgery by the
Railroad officials Discovered and Exposed y
you have thought proper to charge upon the
Minnesota and Pacific Raire ad Company,
and especially upon the Secretary of that
corporation, acts the responsibility of which
belong to me.
Some ten daysAsince JOHN p. OWENS, ESQ.,,
suggested to me the propriety of preparing
for distribution throughout the State, POLL
Books adapted for use at the special election
to be holden on the 18th of April. Acting
upon the suggestion, procured at the office
of the Pioneer and Democrat, copy of the
Poll Book used at the last general election,
and modified it, as i supposed, to meet the
occasion. The title of the Poll Book is the
same as the one which has been generally
used, except reference to the act under
which the election is to be held. No other
change was made in the body of the Book,
except to designate it for use at the Special
election on the 18th of April, according to
the provisions of Section so, chapter 5, page
So, of the Revised Statutes, and the Act ap-
proved March 9th, 1858.
That these changes were proper will not
be denied, and whether proper or not, they
do not affect the character or merits of the
Poll Book itself.
The fact that the Author of the Poll Book
thought proper to adapt the provisions OF
the chapter on Election of the Revised Stat
utes, numbered chapter 5, has been made the
ground of serious charge, which 1 hope
would not have been made upon careful con-
sideration.
By reference to the last two pages of the
Poll Book you will observe, that it nowhere
processes to copy from page As of the Revised
Statutes. The caption to the matter reads
as follows "Law relating to Judges and
Clerks Of Elections. Revised Statutes, Page
45. Adapted to the provisions of an Act
entitled an Act proposing an amendment to
Section ten, article nine of the Constitution
and providing for the submission of the same
to the people, approved March 9th, 1852
Had the extracts been taken literally from
the Revised Statutes, they would have been
inapplicable to the use for which they were
designed.
Sections five, eight, nine and ten, are copied
from the Revised Statutes. Section eleven
is changed to correspond with the act OF
March ninth, in respect to the time of open
ing and closing the Polls. Section twelve is
literal copy Of a correspondingly numbered
section of the Revised Statutes.
Section l3, is adapted and simply indicates
the form and nature of the ballot. Section
Is copies only SO much of corresponding
section of the Revised Statutes as applies
From section fifteen, down to and including
section 29 is literal transcript of cores.
ponding sections of the Revised Statutes.
Section 80 is adapted for the OCCASION
Section 81 has been changed by inserting the
word Gouermor instead of the words Clerk
of the Board of County Commissioners, &c,"'
wherever the same occurs and section 80
has been altered in the same particular.
Section 81 and 80 We're modified to meet
my owR construction of section of the act
of March 9th, 1858. The same doubt which
is suggested by your article of this morning,
occurred TO me, and for the purpose of constru-
ing the section according to its design, con-
suited several members of the Legislature,
who informed me that the design of the bill
was not, as you suggest, to substitute the
word "Governor" for " Secretary" but to OBJ
viate the delays incident to an intermediate
canvass by the Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners of the several counties This
construction, in view Of the fact that the act
itself requires the canvass by the Governor
to be made within twenty days after the eec-
ton, and of the further fact that Sec. S, page
3O,amendments to the Revised Statutes, al
lows twenty days for the returnto the Clerk of
the County Commissioners, seemed best to
interpret the intention of the Legislature.
If have incorrectly interpreted the Sec
ton referred to, and my mistake leads others
to error and confusion, in matter of public
Importance, shall deeply regret it.
1t is due to j. W. TAYLOR, Esq.,, to say
that he disagreed with me in my interpreta-
ton of the Statute, and accorded with the
construction adopted only upon being inform
ed that it was thought but to consist with
the intention of the body wGlch enacted the
laws aseertained after inquiry of those most
likely to be advised in the premises
I am with much respect, yours,
7 RRTSRIN