Evening star., 1867-05-18

Third Ward, Of which he was a resident, an d
omitted voluntarily togo before them; that foI
tna. cause he was not entitled to be registered
| Board erred in that respect. The law com.
panded them to Jake aregistry Of the lega
voters of the District. The performance OF
whether legal voter asked to be registered or
not II the Board had reason TO believe, and
I supposed him to be a legal voter, 1t was their
duty to place his name on the registry, whether
he did OF did not make application to be regis.
tered. = 5
In this case. although the Board refused for
the cause mentioned to place Langley's name
upon the registry OF voters at the time Of his
application, 10 is not, in my opinion, TO be pre-.
sumed that tbe Beard will ultimately, on the
two days provided by starute tor listening to
such applcafion,.i If he should find his name
omitted from the list, refuse to examine into
his qualifications as legal voter, and to place
nis name on the registry II they find him duly
show cause why writ Of mandamus shall
not issue in his case m ust be denied.
There are one or two other cases In volving
questions somewhat distinct from the applica-
ton OF Langley that may be properly con.
sldered In this connection.
In the case of Boyd, who, 1t would seem,
made an application to be registered while the
pose in the ward in which he resided, and
claimed to be entitled to vote, objection was
raised to his being enrolled on the ground of
fense, an d therefore not entitled to vote under
the act Of Congress referred to.
1t is sworn to in Boyd's petition that he was
convicted OF aiding certain slaves to escape
from this District, which, by the then existing
law, was made penal offence, punishable BY
imprisonment in the penitentiary, and that in
pursuance Of such conviction he was SEN
seven years each. It further appears that he
presented to the Judges OF Election at the
time Of his application full pardon, granted
by the President OF the United States, for the
O0Pnc0 W inta
With these facts before us, the question to
De CONSIDERED Ia his case Is, whether the par.
don granted BY the President restores Boyd
would seem from the decision in the case of
eS pdrte Garland, recently made in the Su.
preme Court OF the United States, that upon
msnt. h..
The Judges OF Election have taken the pre.
else letter OF the statue, which says: that no
ps,sos h OF any indamous =, crime
regarded this conviction which consigned
BOYD to prison for seven years, and declared
BY the act felony, to be an Infamous ofense.
Wnetner this onense comes withia the mean
ing Of the term siRfamous offense," as kuo wn
to the common law, II is unnecessary here to
inquire, for think when full and free par
don was granted to Boyd that he stood in pre-
ciselY the same relations OF citizenship as
though no such offense had been committed
and no conviction had been had. The mean
ing OF the statute, in my Judgment, is that no
nous ofense. from the pains and penalties of
which ofense he has not been reliev we'd by full
pardon, is entitled to vote; and that his name,
applicatlon be made. should be placed upon
The caseef Tufton is substantially like that
OF Langley, with thus exception, that it is al
legged that the Judges Of Election, or one of
them, rendered to him an oath which he re-
fused to take, and that in conseq uence of such
refusal they declined to register his name as
a voter. 1t is not set out in the return, as 1t
U aS dpaip
was proposed to be administered to him.
which he declined to take. Under the proyis.
IONS OF the Joint Resolution before referred to,
tits provided that 1t shall be lawful for the said
Judges OF Election to adm in ster oaths in all
cases relating to the duties assigned them by
law. Now, the duties assigned them by Law
We're: First, to make registry Of the legal
voters of the District, which they were to do
with diligence. faithfulness and care exercis.
ing their best judgment as to who were and who
were not qualfied voters On such list being
completed it was to be published and posted
in one or more public places They were then
TO sit for at least two DAYS for the purpose of
correcting and examining the list. They
might unquestionably administer an oath 70
any applicant whose name had been omitted
from the list, and who claimed to be placed
1nereon. or 10 any person whose name had
them under oath, whether they were nos.
sessed OF the requisite Qualifications They
might IN my Judgment 60 further. They
might near proofs in contradiction of the aft.
davits OF the applicant to be put upon the list
or 10 be removed, or whom it was proposed
to erase from the list, and If on such occasion
the applicant for registry refused to answer
all tbs questions which necessarily involved
mis- Qualifications as voter, the Board
might very properly reject that application
II he in his affidavit swore that he possessed
Congress to constitute him legal voter, the
Board might hear contradictory testimony on
that subject, and II there should be in such case
evidence both for and against the party as to
ha Ind IS
Election are the only tribunal appointed by
law to decide that question. =,
1t was argued at much length that the Board
was invested with judicial, or quasi judicial
powers in making mp this registry; that in
some way they were TO exercise their discre-
tion upon the subject. and their decision was
discretion" has no application whatever in
my judgment. They were assigned a plain
duty; they were to perform that duty ac-
cording to their best judgment. The aues.
tion Of a persons qualification as voter
OF this District, where evidence pro and
CON is submitted to the Board, must be
Sst Ssssrnhea oy me & beard according to their
ever to be exercised. II they believe from the
facts presented that the applicant is possessed
Of the requisite qualifications they are SO to
decide and place his name upon the registry
If from the evidence adduced before them thew
come to different conclusion they are to r..
ject aim. IT is their duty to do so; there is no
Judging from evidence adduced before them as
to the qualifications mentioned in the act Of
Congress WHICH constitute voter In this Dia-
trlct, they are Independent of our control.
They are not, however, permitted to refuse to
register voter on any such capriclous ground
as that he has not applied to the Board for
registration at any time within fl ye DAYS pre.
ceding the day OF election. rqs~ az =
conclude, therefore, that the rules in these
cases to show cause whya m6ndamus should
NOT issue against the judges Of Election should
be discharged, ng sxF5, FAHa go -
IN concluding Judge Olin, expressed the
opinion that the Judges would do their duty
on the DAYS when they sit for the correction Of
judge 'Wyhs alao delivered an opinion, in
which, after quoting from the 'actsof Jsnuary
G and February S, 1867, he relates the facts,
and then goes on to say: tsThe law prescribes
no time within which the several lists are to
be completed, except only that they shall ali
have been made out and published az least ten
days prior TO the election. The list OF the
Third Ward might have been kept open up 10
the last day and then published along with
those OF all the other wards; but this was
matter which the law left to the discretion. or
the Judges, and they closed the list and had n
published on or about the 30th OF April, nore
than month before the day OF the next cleo.
tfon. They pnrsued the same course as 10 ascb
Of the ether wards al the lists were e vefaH
completed instheif order aaeA " $40 ~
1t Is not pretended BY the relator that abun :. 2
dant opportunity was not Afforded him to have
his name entered upon the List Of voters of his
ward prier,to the compilation and publication