Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1866-01-05

signed tile certificate Of Mr. Goffroth. But
/ thinlc it will not require argument to show
the members OF this Committee, chat, hav-
ing been appointed return judge for the pur-
pose Of performing a single act, when that
act was performed, when he met the board
Of district judges aud certified to the result
Of the election, his duties were discharged
and he was fi,acias o6icjo. He bad no pow
er legally to meet with any other board or
do any other act
Ef Epson said, If he understood the
stipulations, that the regular returns OF
Franklin county were taken by Alr. Lacler
70 ChambersbUgg; II that vas true, he la-
squired where lhr. Wilhelm set his returns
III. cssHQ-i7rom the Prothonotary :
Office, / presume But propose to ask my
friend from Michigan this question: When
Mr.. Winters, Of Fulton county, met our
board and surrendered his returns, where
did he get the returns Which he took before
the CoRroth board?
III. CofroH This was the regular re
turn. He never took any legal return to
your board.
Ah Cessao Now. gentlemen, in this
connection, let me call your attention to one
other fact Mr. Mann, Of Bedford county,
WAS elecled return Judge st the first meeting
OF the county board Mr. Lacker Of Frank
lin county, was slectcd at the second meeting.
Both these individuals signed Mr. Cotiroth $
certificate. Ns insist upon it that cur op-
poucnts ought 10 be consistent; that if there
is any vitality or force IN their argument,
that Mr. Mann having been first elected re-
turn Judge irom Bedford, he was the legal
officer to carry the yote 81 the county to
the District Boatd Thc} Should also admit
that Mr.. Wilhelm, the gentleman first elect
ted return judge from Franklin county,
should also be considered as the proper Off
Ger fot that purpose His name IS to our
certificate
Mr. Chairman these are but preliminary
parts Of this case, They are not vital, but
they are not so inconsiderable as to be prop
ery excluded or omitted The point, on
which rely with most absolute certainty,
viii now state il very few words to the Com-
mttec.
assert, as part Of The law Of Pennsylya-
u3, tbat every county board, and every dis.
tTlt board, nu act as a unit and cannot
act otherwise. There is not case In Penn
yiyana either in the Common Pleas, Dis
Tct Court, or Supreme Court OF the State,
within my knowledge (and if there is | will
/ be obliged TO my opponent to produce itl IN
which any action Of any board Of return
( Judges or district judgeSl ia the whole State OF
/ Pennsylvania has divided and been sustain
ed II is not Indispensable under the law,
OF the State that every return judge shall be
/ present A majority Of those appointed By
| law must attend IN order to make q board
but when they have assembled they can ae
! only as unit-and any other action or de
] eision is no action oy decision at all. l d'
/ CGlbtN .'-4e--.- ,ie,r'es. Of the Adam
what majority Of the Jt}s -,,,,,i ~,
Of Bedford have decided. | do not car,
! what majority of the district judges have
/ decided. If they were not a unit, their de
cision has no validity whatever. This very
/ question was decided in 1864 by the I.epiS
la5t5F9 OF Pennsylvania, relative to the vote
OF three Of the counties Of this Conrression.
al district, constituting a representative dis
trict--the counties of Somerset, Bedford
and Fulton. The judges divided and sent
up tBo sets Of papers but the Legislature
decided that both papers made but one re-
/ turn
The law SAYS that the returns shall b
signed By all tbe judges preseut-these are
Che words OF the statute, and this question
was bus decided by the Legislature of Penn
syIyanla. Because one Of the Judges inclu-
ded the return OF soldier voies, which ths
Others excluded, the two papers were. .pu.
together and counted as one. And so in
this Instance If tde soldiers votes which a
majority of judges excluded in two Of the
counties are included, Gen. Koontz is elect
ed as clearly as ever man was elected to
seat IN this House, 1t is a miserable at
tempt to overthrow the will of the majority.
for base and wicked purposes.
And not only this. but il the Committee
please, the Courts in PENNSYLVANIA have
also decided this question in a county eloc-
Jon for Sheriff The home vote elect i
Thompson, the Republican candidate, and
OF the board consisting Of u members. ff
teen signed the certificate eiecting 1homp-
son, aud nine De emocratic judges signed one
electng Ewing, the Democratic candidate.
admitting 5000 soldiers votes which had
been rejected by the other Judges. The
Court decided that the two papers made but
one, aud approved the securities Of the can
dIdate who by the united return received
the most yotes, although he had but niue
judges who voluntarily certified TO his elec-
ton, while the othor had fifteen.
JHE CHAIRMAN inquired whether by put
ting the Two papers together It was held ihat
I'll the iqdscS had signed the paper thus
united
-Rr Cesaa. no SIR, but the courts Of
PeDna. have ALWAYS looked at all papers to
ascertain for whom a majority Of votes were
given.
III. Epson asked, if portions of the iudg-
es acted separately upon different papers.
how putting them together would make the
action q! he board unit
.Br fts4su 1t did not; but I care not
how yea gard it lfyou put both these
papers presented tc the committee together
as one my client has a pj1n'a tircic right to
the seat for they show that he had major
lty OF votes ut the ballot-bOx
In this case Of Robert Ewing. before the
District Court Of Philadelphia, the ques
ton was this: Two gentlemen claimed to
have been elected Sheriff, and the point to
be determined was who was to be sworn and
whose securities We're to be approved on
the presentation Of the case, prtna f1cie.
the Court was composed of two RepnbIi-
cans and one Democrat | read from the
Philadelphia reports, vol 4, p. so Each Of
the candidates claiming 10 have been eec
ted Sheriff at the late election presents
certificate, certifying in the case of Robert
Ewjng, that he was elected with the army
vote received under protest, and in the
case of John Thompson, that he was dul
elected Sheriff by the legal votes computed
by the board otTcturu Judges, We have
also two certificates ar returns OF election
ilos in the Office ut the PIofhonotarv OF the
Common Pleas uw certifying that John
Thompson having received 80 T5S vHtes.
and Robert Ewing 59,1l2, John Thomson
having the highest number Of votes pollea
ur sheriff A. aforesaid. we do hereby de-
:ale him duly elected Sheriff for the city