The Elko independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 1869-1872, 1869-09-15

apply to a District Judge for a wit Of manda-
mus to have it restored, and on making the
proper proof should have it restored, could
he then ask to have his vote counted? Ger
tainly not, AS he had neglected to do the
things necessary to be done in the time
allowed him by law, which would be fatal, so
far as the past, would be concerned. although
| he might vote in future elections The law
presumes that every Registration Agent will do
| his duty under his oath, and hence il provides
that when names are registered they should
be regarded as printd .tdeie voters, and when
they are so regarded, it points out clearly AID
amply in what manner that presumption may
| be overthrown, and in no other way can il be
done than the one provided by law; and that
there may be no room for mistake concerning
this proposition, We will quote the exact
language of the statute Section eight of the
act providing for registration after enumerat-
ing the duties of Registry Agents after regis
tration has closed, has this provision:
Objections to the right to vote shall be made
only by a qualified elector in writing, setting
forth the grounds of objection or disqualitica-
ton, and sworn TO or affirmed TO, TO the best
]
written objections with the name of the OBJ
Jector, together with copy of notice recurring
the person objected 10 TO appear before the
registry Agent at q certain time specified
therein, and answer under oath such questions
as may be propounded to him by the Registry
Agent, touching his qualifications as an
elector, shall be served on the person objected
to, and such service shall be good when left
at the place of residence of the person OBJ
Jected 10, as the same shall appear in the
| Official Register however general and indefi-
mite the same may be described in the Official
Register; prOridcd that personal service shall
bereqUired when the objections are filed with
the Registry Agent on the last day on which
objections are allowed; but such objections SO
filed on the last day may be served and deter
mined on the succeeding day, and no such
objection shall be tried unless II shall anpear
by the return of an officer, or the sworn state
ment OF an elector within the county. append
ed TO such notice, that such objections and
notice were by him duly served by copy as in
this section OF this act required. At the time
specified III the notice or at such further time
ms the hearing may be adjourned TO, the Reg
istry Agent upon being satisfied from the re-
turn or affidavit that proper service of notice
/ has been had, as in this section provided
shall proceed to examine such person (if
presently under oath, touching all matters
| specified in such objections and respecting
o T.
| the testimony of the person making the OBJ
| jections, and any further evidence offered
| (Which the Registry Agent before whom OBJ
| lectons are made may desire to hear in rela-
ton thereto)."
The foregoing provisions of our statute are
! simply enacted in aid of the broad common
law doctrine, that no man shall be condemned
in any case where his rights are affected with
out hearing; that no mans rights shall be
stricken down and wTested from him without
an opportunity allowed him to make defense.
Let us now apply the plain principles of
! the common law recognized ard rcafIirmed in
| the language of the statute lust quoted and
see how this case will stand effected We have
searched in vain through the affidavit which
was the foundation for the writ of mandamus.
| through the pleadings and Judgment of the
! Court, to find line or syllable 10 show that
the one hundred and tifty-four persons whose
names were ordered stricken from the registry
list by the Judgment of the Court were ever
notified that any proceedings were taken
against them for that purpose; but on the con-
trary, we find any such presumption expressly
| negatiyed by the sworn statement of the chaI-
longing party, who swears that he demanded
of the Registration Agent that he issue notices
TO the parties challenged, but that that officer
refused and neglected so to do. The persons
challenged then had no notice, and the statute
expressly says that the Register Agent shall
have no power to strike them from the regis
ter until they do have. Without notice TO
the persons challenged by Mcclure, it is evil
dent that Mr.. Waterman had no right or mn.
thority to disturb their names; bnt, saws Nc
CURE 81 demanded that he issue notice
and have them served" Perhaps he did and
perhaps he did not, but suppose he did; who
clothed him with authority to command Mr.
Waterman to issue and cause TO be served the
notices required by law? The wording of the
statute above quoted will not, admit of any
such construction, as it seems TO contemplate
| that tho person challenging shall prepare and
servo his own notices and that the returns
shall be verified when 80 served if served by n
private person. But whether il was Mr.. Wa
torman's duty or not, makes no sort of differ
ence so far as the rights Of the CHALLENGED
parties were concerned, as their names were
lawfully enrolled as voters primd facic, and
could not be disturbed by Mr. Waterman or
| any ono else without first giving the proper
notice. If Mr.. Waterman, as Registration
Agent, had no lawful power to strike them Off
whence comes the power Of the learned Judge