Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-12-17
- -
NUMBER 81.
n .!.I5Td .7FTT770FT 770RaJ n
TaYlar & Saarff a,s Eastar L. q g


537 /; Howard us. Shields, 16 o. S. r.,
1s0-f92. .s7E a1o1 s3E al b2z0lo aIo9A
The only case to be found of "a deeiJ
sion by. any Ohio Oourt,q holding that
such closing of the polls,ferq 4dimeraren-
ders the election heidi that place void,
is one made by the District Court of
Hamilton county, in 1867 report of
which Is found in the American Eaw
Register, for December, 1S67a THE opin.
ion was pronounced by Judge Brinker-
hef, of the Supreme rGourtxznIt arose
| out ofan election held for Mayor of Mt
Airy, in thai, county. The holding de-
prived both candidates Of the office, and,
resulted in the old Mayor holding over.
The case was onl y argued upon one side
that to sustain the validity of the cleo
item No authority was referred to by
counsel or Court. The reason assigned
for the decisionois, that thall legal right
/ 0fthe Ooters to cast their Uoter, during tkea
the recess, acas destroyed by it.assss0 zaT
But if no voter attempted, or even de-a
sired to exercise his right during that
time, it is difficult to perceive any ny injury,
to anybody, or how any. voters rights
u WCT0 uoul0u 10 lulpGU6Q,
interfered with. Besides, If all reasonp
ablelopportunities are afforded to voters
to vote at anaelection, that tl0ughtitossbeo
sufficient The practical lexereissIof ey-
cry right in all other cases, isIspbiect tor
reasonable Interruptions and delays
and why should this, right, be made an,
exceptionq All who undertake to do a
particular thing, within a given time,
and do it, are expected only to s1bstanI
TALLY employ sthatz itimelA interruptions
for ordinary necessary purposes merelys
temporarylin heireharacter, being, usual
and natural incidentsoof all sueh7underd
takings and requirements, and ordinarilys
to be anticipated, ,d ssa YxzNo9oR .ax
All that, this law would, seem to res a
quire is, that the exercise of the right.
vote shall be substantially atP IytH afforded shf f.
Ailfdsprivationns Of fl right, all wrong gs,S g.
all injurious consequences to anybody
must be- proved BY the contestants! In
the Language of the Supreme Court off
Illinois, in Piatt VS.. People. &C., atpsgeC
1915 Necannotrpresameso one s0ny orr tie
The question: then is tisii thesl
| law imperative, or only directoryjhi Theii
| decision, of the .Hamilteny County Dis
trict Court is, not binding upon. the ,
! Court Of Common Pleas Of this district
though entitled to the highest respect,
and to be carefully weighed and consid- q,
: cred. There is no case to be found that
will support it. The whole current Of =
| thel2 authorities and their reasoning'iis
against it, e1s2ai= 35tlaef o7si hs7so nDn
/ People Us. Cook, IA Barb. On. Y9pi'
!, Rep, 259; ;ssli ~ III. s. sge2G ps 4l(19 zaT
/ People ps. Cook, A Seld. Is M Y)n
Rep, 81; .sHo0s gnirogiIst
i People, &c., Us. Martin, Seld. u N.
/ W Rep, Pa ,di u. d59 z issg b31s,
T Piatt &c, Us. People, 20 Ill. Rep, 54.6
I Broadhead Us, Milwaukee, 10 Wis.
Rep, ,624. -,
! Aug. and Am. Cor. p. 90, sec. 5, and
p. "a.
The reasonings found in these cases
seem to be eisounder and more in accord
ance with the principles contained in the
decisions ofIour own sSupreme oOonrt,
and moreain accordance with justice and
the rights of the voters, than are toabe
found in the District Court decision.
Unless compelled to do so by alaw clear
/ ly imperative, COURT should not : dis
franchise the legal voters of any town
| ship, and defeat, beyond question, the /,
undoubte.: choice of the majority of the
voters of county, and give effect to the
4 choice of the minority in its stead. I,
/ Further serious consequences are like
i ly to result from doing so, A State
election is ssometimes very close; and to
SO set aside the election, in a few town.
ships, might defeat the choice of the
4 majority of the voters of the whole
State, and put the minority in power.
! A State may decide the election for
: President of the United, Statesn and. the
} vote of that State might be changed by
the application of the principle cons
tended for here so the choice of a.
President, really elected, might, be de7
feated, and the office awarded, to his
: opponent, fairly defeated, by. the legal
votes of the people. 1T,
ii Following, then, what was deemed the
o sounderz reasoning, and the undoubted
: current of decisions, the Court would
Y hold the law merely directory in such a
!, state of case, as these cases present, and
0 not vital or imperative. ssli ag:fzlz zEA1
Judgments were rendered in favor Of
: the defendants, the contestees, in all the
y cases, and against the plaintiffs, the COM
r .testants,. with COSTS, under the law Of,
r 1868, giving the Democrats elected their
s otic, s. NJ. L. Clark, of Chillicothe, and
a H. G. Jones, for plaintiffs, the CONTEST
t ants; Alfred Yaple, Of Cincinnati, Judge.
E Grogan, of Hooking. and D: s: Dana,
= and Mr.. Mayo, for defendants, the con-
testees. -
II Bills Of exceptions were taken Blythe
t Republican contestants, and will go be-
fl fore the Supreme Court on motions for
J leave to file petitionsin error. 10 4 II ~
So the law is to be definitely settled.i