The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-01-20

IL 10 seluolh tbaL an instance OF TIE TYR
amy OF majorities is SO fully exempliGed os
it has been in this case; and, as we consider
that such startling assumptions of power,
strike at the very foundation of our repre-
sentative system Of government, we propose
to lay before our readers brief review of
the admitted facts in the matter.
And first it is admitted and confessed
that IN the canvass of the vote of Fillmore
county, the entire return from the established
precinct of Chatfeld, was thrown out by the
board OF canvassers, whose duty it was " to
receive and canvass all returns" ard to
issue certificates to the person or persons
who by such returns have the greatest num-
be OF votes" BY this first, most violent
assumption Of power, tie Auditor not only
arrogated to himself the authority to pass
judgment upon the lie. ality OF an election,
| but also in bis most arbitrary conduct,
actually disfranchised all the Qdmiuet! hgai
Coters OF the precinct.
1t Is charged that number Of Republican
votes had been distracted from the ballot
box, and that Democratic votes were sub
stituted, and hence the Republicans Justify
the action of the Auditor If such had
been the fact, surely the charge should have
been sustained by proof, or brought to the
knowledge of some tribunal, with at least
the semblance of trial. But in this case,
under Republican rule, every safeguard Of
law was abrogated or suspended, and fraud
was presumed and if the action of our
Republican Senate is to be a precedent, then
any petty politician who may climb into the
Office of County Auditor, may, in every
case where partizan rancor begets untenable
charges Of informality Or fraud, utterly
disfranchise the voters OF his county, in his
discretion, and without particle of proof.
| We have no patience with this pretended
argument of discretion in the Auditor.
The law vests no discretion in the courts,
! nor in the Senate, and far less in County
Auditor, to pass Judgment gitaoW evidence
or trial. 1t is not pretended that evidence
was taken before the canvassing boards,
! neither is there any provision of law for such
evidence being taken before that august
court, if court it be- When we consider
that two out of the three of this canvassing
board were themselves candidates for office.
at the same election, and that by suppressing
the Chatfied vote certificates might be
issued to themselves, we may well exclaim,
/ Heaven save US from such court
The entire vote of the Chatfeld precinct,
according to the returns, was 2S9; of which
BRYANT received l91, O'FARRELL FOG, while
HOLLY received but 80, and WELLS but s.,
And here we would notice the fact that in
1859 the Democratic vote of Chatfeld was
1876, 10 the face of Republican gains over
the previous election, thus confirming the
truth of the returns for BRYANT and OFAR
RELL.
To resume our narrative of admitted
facts: The Auditor COLBY, issued certif-
Gates of election to HOLLY and WELLS, who,
by all the returns, had the loocest number of
votes, and also to the different candidates
for county officers, Including himself, who
were in like manner made to appear elected
by the suppression of the Chatfied vote.
The election of these spurious county
officers was of course contested, and after a
long and searching examination before
Judge WILSON, of the third judicial District
not only was the Chatfield vote admitted,
and the Auditor COLBY rebuked, but the
charge of fraud so glibly made in political
circles could not be maintained in the sober
precincts of the court. In short, the Repub-
licans were ousted from the offices they had
usurped, and that, too, by Judge whose
sympathies are we'll known to be entirely
with the Republicans, and who had been
elected to the bench by the popular vote as
Republican candidate
AS no means are provided for the contest
of elections to the Senate, except in the
body itself, Messrs. O'FARRELL and BRYANT
rightfully conceiviDg that they were not
only entitled to permanent seats in the
Senate, but also to certificates of election,
based upon the returns, made application to
the Supreme Court for a peremptory man.
damus to compel the performance of this
act, ito wit the issuance of their certif-
Gates by the Auditory (which the law
specially epjoins as duty incumbent upon
the Auditory resulting from an office, trust
or station" To sustain this application,
certificates under the hand and seal Of the
auditor himself were presented, attesting
that the Chat6eld vote had been duly
returned, that it had been suppressed, and
that BRYANT and O'FARRELL had received
the highest number of votes. 1t was surely
apparent" on every conceivable hypothe.
sis, "that no valid excuse could be given "
for the non performance of the Auditors
| o,or;h bod dntv and M +rxo IN 1oxu uonld