The mountain Democrat., 1865-12-30

him one more vote than the Board of Election.
In regard to the question made concerning
the votes cast for " Williams" and the cast
for McCallum," deem it unDecessaryto say
anything more than that the proofs fully sus-
tanned the action Of the Election Board and
the Board Of Canvassers. ~
In regard 10 the question made concerning
folded tickets-I am Of the opinion that this
is altogether too technical to be regarded. l
| do not regard them as double tickets within
| the. meaning Of the statute, for Il says, III
| two tickets are found folded together they
shall both be rejected" and 1 think It clear ITS
object is to prevent Q voter from deposlting 10
the ballot box two separate tickets, able 70 be
; separately counted by being so folded as TO be
taken apart. In this case the ballots were so
paLted together that they could ust he torn
apart and there is no evidence to show toat IN
q single instance they did codre aPart or we're
torn apart; aud in addition to this there was
no want of form and the Board Of Judges could
have had nO difficulty in determining to their
satisfaction the person voted for and the once
intended" find, therefore, from all the Gvi-
! deuce offered by the Contestant, to prove llle-
! gal votes. that il is established that the votes
| OF. E. A. Rogers, Geo. Wherung and = Gil:
| lenwater and also the ballot marked "Ex. r
''GeOrgetown," so far as it relates to the office
of District Attorney, should be thrown out as
illegal, so that the Respondents vote would
stand 2029.
The Respondent proved the votes of A. Claw
sen, p Clawsen, A. b. Shearer, and Thos.
Wagner to be illegal, and deducting their votes
with the ballot marked Ex. R." so far as 1t
relates to the office Of District Attorney, It
leaves the total number Of Contestants vote
at 2024.
| In regard to the vote cast at Jayhawk, l
! find for Respondent four votes, which added
! to the number already found makes for Re-
| spOndent 2033; and one being also proved for
Contestant makes his vote 2025.
Many witnesses were examined relative to
the Court in which they were naturaiIed, and
nearly all were shown 10 have been naturalIzed
in the County Court. The point was made by
the Respondent that the County Court had no
! power tn naturalize. owing TO the irregularitv
/ in the manner which the power was conferred
/ upon the Court by the amendment to the Con
shtution Granting the position taken by the
Respondent To be correct, still it does not at
feet the question or the right of the Court in
/ the premises; for if the County Court has
common law jurisdiction. then BY virtue Of the
supreme law If the hand it has the power to
naturalze citizens. To determine the juriSdic-
! ton 0f the County Court il may be sufficient
! to cite its cognizauce Of actions clearly and
wholly OF common law origin and jurisdiction,
such as nuisance, and its criminal jurisdiction;
and am further Of the opinion that the mat.
/ ter is regulated wholly by the law OF Congress
/ in relation thereto, and is unaffected by tie
! State Constitution or any Legislative action.
! In considering tie legality "f the V"tes OF
Rogers and Wagner, although have not Civ
en- To either vote, still ! do not wish to be
considered us passing upon the citizenship al
either, still less Of prornuncing them diSquall-
/ he'd from the exercise Of the elective franchise
Bat from the nature of the proof given there
was but little upon which could act IN deter
mining their rights To vote. Had | regarded
their votes as legitimate, from the evidence,
should have done 50 upCn weak, and to me,
very unsatisfactory proof The proofs were
a. given by themselves, that they were born
in Canada, that they never had eeen natural
i2ed aud that they were informed that their
fathers were born in the Cnrled States. Ii /.
in proof that Rogers voted FIR Respondent
iand that W gner voted tor Cnufe>lAn; zach
! vote wouId thus neu,Tdlize the other. and ~
the result could in no event be affected by al
loving ur REJECTING the votes, have not re.
garded them III ariivlug Il; my decI-"n. = 'IuC
evidence was gwen rs To the ciilZenship Ot Ot t
Sam II. Peltun this, too, Was atitnge ter lua
+, indefinite, and nf Il hearSav character. So much
so indeed that heed could nnt be given Ia it by
the Court. and this too, for this plain reason
| does not enter Al all into the estimate ot the
yoiSS cast fur either C"utcsiant ur Respondent
AZ " he,y,Y'Yremt iruIn The foregoing. that
in view of all w.. cts presented Ia INV con.
sideraton, the concession arrived at is that the
right 10 the Office If District Attorney from
the first Monday i'll March, ls6f, by viriae Of
the election held Sept. 9Th. 1865. vests in the
Respondent. And II is ordered that Judgment
be entered accordingly. aud also that Respond.
, ent have judgment for his Gusts against the
Contestant. OGDEN SQUIRES.
! County Judge.