Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1866-01-12

he demands admission, and there the law of
the State leaves it.. In the case Of county
officer, the statute gives the authority of re-
viewing the conduct Of the judges and in
vestigating the truth Of their certificates to
the courts.
The Judges are required not to decide how
many votes were given, at the election, for
one candidate or another but merely to say
how many are certified to them, not to re-
ceive or reject returns, according to their
discretion, but simply to look at all that are
produced, add them together, and sign their
names to paper which declares the result,
This duty is so perfectly plain, all questions
upon which there might be any difference of
opinion, are so completely excluded from
their cognizance, that the law has made no
provision for the case of disagreement a.
mong them The certificate which they
make must be signed by all the judges They
must act as a unit. A mere majority has
no more right than minority to reject a
part of the returns and then certify the bal
ance as being the whole vote of the county
The certificate ofa county beard not signed
by all the judges who composed it, is utter
ly void. Such is the letter OF the law, and
such is its obvious intent and meaning The
argumentum alb Inconvenience, is ofno force
against the unequiyocal words Of written
statute, and if it were, it might be used both
ways here; for although it be true that reck-
less persons, by refusing to sign, may spoil
the proper evidence of an election, it is also
true that if the power existed ina portion of
the judges to establish by their naked GER
tifcate what the others declare to be false,
such power would be habitually abused in
times Of political excitement 1t was wise
in the legislature to require unanimity, and
thus make If impossible for either party to
defraud the other When the members of
a county borad divide on question of arth-
metie, it is right toreject the statements Of
both There can be no natural presump-
tion in favor cf either, for one is as likely to
be true as the other
But the election is not defeated by spolia-
tion of the evidence Rejecting all partial
certificates as being lawless, and therefore
destitute of any claim 60 attention, proving
nothing, and disproying nothing, we pass
backwards until we come to documents,
which bear upon their face the legal appear
ance of truth and out of them arises that
presumption which constitutes prima fac
lie title to the seat. as
This Congressional District is composed
of the counties of Somerset, Bedford. Full
ton Franklin and Adams, and Mr. Koontz
and Mr.. Cotfroth we're the only persons yo-
ted for
The boardof district judges lone from each
county, generally does, and would always, if
properly constituted, furnish sufficient evi-
denee of the elections, for its duty Is to east
up all the votes and certify which candidate
has been chosen by the majority of the peo
pie. But in this case there were two district
boards, both of which met at Chambersburg
on the same day. Thpg We're both without
authority In both OF them were members
who had been delegated by, and bore certif-
Gates from only part Of theircounty boards.
In one Of them Somerset County was rot
represented at ALL One judge from Fulton
county was in both boards, and certified, the
election of both candidates. The body which
returned Mr.. Koontz has the advantage
over the otherin this, that itcounted all the
votes given in the district of which there
was any evidence. But it must be acknowl
edged that its certificate does not prove that
fact or any ether for this, like the eerti6-
cate of the opposing party, is of no-effect,
nulIand void
A little fu ler statement of the facts seems
necessary here, to show the composition of
the district boards.
In Bedford and Adams, the county boards
divided, signed separate returns, and ap-
pointed different persons to the district
board.
In Franklin, the county board signed the
return unanimously, and on the first day of
meeting, unanimously, appointed one Of
their number to take it up to the district
board; but on the second day, part of them
determined toappoint anotherman to rep
resent them at Cliambersburg, while the
Others adhered to their first choice. So this
board had one return, but two men to carry
it
In Fulton, the county board was unani-
nous in the return, and agreed npon the
member to whom it should be entrusted.
There was no attempt to revoke his appoint
ment, but for some reason not known he
made himself member of both the bodies
claiming to be district boards.
In Somerset there was no division on any
subject, and the person appointed to take
the return to Chambersburg, went there
with it, and joined the body which he prob
ably thought the legal one, refusing to unite
with the other The result was that Som
erset had one undisputed and regular re-
/ turn, sent by one man, who submittedit to
one board. Fulton had one eretuin, and one
man to take it; but he took it to both pla-
ces. Franklin had one return, but two rep
4 resentatives, who divided and went to differ
ent places. Bedford and Adams county
each had two returns and two representa-
tives who Joined different bodies at Cham
bersburg. The Koontz body (let me call il
4 50 for distinction) had five members and
was a fill board, but two of them had re.
turns only partially signed, and had their ap.