The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1866-02-23

COfirOth's majority, on the face of
these certified returns from the return
Judges of these several counties COM
posing the sixteenth congressional dis
trict, it will be seen, is 80, and he still
has the prim0 fdcie right to the seat.
But it is claimed on the part of Mr..
Koontz that all the return Judges in each
county must sign an0certify the returns
of that county; that the judges must
act as unit, and that if they do not so
unite i'm signing the certificate, the GER
tificate is void and tie return invalid.
A similar position was taken by dem
ocratic district board If return judges
of the counties of Fnnklin, Fulton,
Bedford and Somerset, composing the
sixteenth judicial distfct of Pennsyl-
vania, in regard to retuln of Soldiers
votes for judge, certitiedby the majOri-
ty of the county return Judges of Bed
ford, the same as in this case, paper
g. and said district return judges assu-
med to reject the return of soldiers
votes for Judge, SO certified by the ms
iOrity of the return judges of Bedford
county, because said return was not sign
ed by the remaining nine return judges
of said county, and in this way over
came the majority for King, the Repub-
lican candidate for judge, and gave the
certificate to Kimmell. the Democratic
candidate, but included in their return
a statement of this soldiers vote, and
the fact of their action in regard to it.
The governor referred the matter to
the attorney general, and Mr.. Mere
dith, on the Both of November, 1864,
IN if,in fnl
ing language:
"The district return judges of the
sixteenth judicial district, composed Of
the counties of Franklin, Bedford, Som
erset and Fulton, have transmitted to
the secretary of the Commonwealth a
return in which they state that they
have not included the Bedford county
return of soldiers votes, a copy of
which they annex, and they assign as
the reason for not including it that said
return was not certified to by nine of
the return Judges of Bedford county.
The return in question is signed
by thirteen of the county return
Judges, forming therefore majority OF
the whole number.
"THe reason assigned for not Hct'tdiRg
this return is pdlDdbly insufficient. As
authority of the return judges concerns
matters of a public nature, majority
may act at a meeting lawfully assem-
bled, and their meeting is presumed to
be lawful in the absence of proof to the
cOntrary.-The clause of the 18th sec
ton of the act of 1889, providing that
the returns shall be signed by all the
Judges present, does not govern thepreS-
ent case and if it did, it would, lst,
be construed as directory merely; and,
I'd, it would be presumed that the re-
turn was signed by all the judges pres
ent in the absence of proof to the con-
trary"
A similar opinion, as to the power Of
a majority of the return judges to act
in certifying returns, is given by said
attorney general in the paper hereinbe-
fore referred to, paper 30, and the ma
iority Of the committee fully concur in
this opinion of the saidattorney gener-
al of Pennsylvania, and consider re-
turn, certified by a majority OF the
county return judges, as a good and
valid return. In the case of the Judges
above referred to, the governor, acting
upon the opinion submitted to him by
the attorney general, counted the vote
thus certified by the majority of the
county return judges, copy of it be-
ing contained in the return certified to
the secretary of the Commonwealth,
considering said certificate as valid un-
der the law of Pennsylvania, and as
showing pTiDad facie right in Mr.. King
to the seat; and he accordingly aWar-
ded it to him by issuing to him the
commission. This precedent would
seem to be conclusive of this case. But
neither the attorney general nor any
| other party in the case of the said dis
| trict Judge ever claimed the right on a
p1-ia2d fdcie case to go behind the return
of amajOrity of the county judg-
es and inquire what other soldiers votes
or returns of votes, if any, had been re-
| iected or not counted by them, much
less to claim that certificate of the mi
nority of said return judges was of any
legal authority, or was originalevidence
for any purpose on the investigation oi
a prinld fdcje right.
But it is claimed, on the part of Mr.
Koontz, not only that the act of the
majority of the county return judges
in certifying thesereturns from Adam:
| o-l DoJeo.I ;n xv0sJ h.,A that 4ha Cnp1