The Elko independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 1869-1872, 1869-12-29
THE ELKO INDEPENDENT.
WEDNESDAY. DEcEMBER -. i,ss.
NJ suprsn. Court .sa Kllo couasy.

Supreme Court in the case Of ..the State ex.
rel. 8. W. Mcguire vs.. Thos. A. Waterman, :"
II vas not our intention to enter into any ex-
tended review Of its merits or legal soundness,
knowing as we did that our citizens were en-
tirely satisfied with the result, without critical
scrutiny into she technical points Of law in.
Solved therein. Since that time, however,
circumstances have arisen which demand of
rs n brief reference TO the facts and the con-
illusions Of law involved in and covered by
that decision. The Virginia Enterprise, with
its usual Disregard of facts and ignorance of
law, treats the reading public to q pretended
review Of the points decided in the case, and
concludes its stupid article with the assertion
that the people of Elko county have crawled
through small hole" in having their county
organization sustained by the Supreme Court.
The Reese River Reveille likewise has its saw.
and as n matter Of course, founders about
through q column and half of a compound
Of bad Latin. worse English. horrible logic,
and total ignorance Of law, in which is con-
tanned a vile and scurrilous attack upon the
integrity of thu Supreme Court. The Enter
prise, while pretending to treat the subject
from an impartial standpoint, assumes that
Elko county barely escaped being remanded
back to the tender and paternal embrace of
mother Lander, by reason of the fact that the
proceedings taken against the Registration
Agent, Judge Waterman, came too late; when
nothing could be further from the truth, as
the record before the Supreme Court, whatey-
er the decision might have been upon the
points presented, did not in the remotest de-
gree involve the question of the legality of our
existence rs a county. Before the county or
ganization of Elko could be disturbed by any
proceeding taken against it, it would have
been absolutely essential to sho$ that a num-
Der Of fraudulent votes. sufficier, to reduce
the number Of registered votes below thou
sand, had been placed upon the register, which
fact could only be shown after due and legal
notice &c the parties challenged and proof
taken in each individual case; and hence, the
Supreme Court neither said nor intimated that
in its judgment there was a single fraudulent
vote registered IN the county Of EIko al the
late election, as the Court had no means of
knowing anything about the matter beyond
what was presented in the record, and could
decide nothing but what was before il. Inor.
der to demonstrate this proposition even to
the satisfaction Of the long-eared gentry Of the
Enterprise and Reveille, it will only be neces-
sary TO refer, briefly, to the points Of law pre-
sented in the record which went up 10 the Su-
Preme Court, and upon which alone that tn
bunal was authorized to pass judgment. A
certain number of votes in excess of the num-
Der required by law to be registered as a con-
dition precedent to the organization of the
county were found to be upon the registration
books within the proper time. Each and all
OF the names so registered became thereby
Primd Jdeie voters, as the law presumes that
all its sworn officers have acted in good faith
until the contrary be shown by competent
proof. In this instance Judge Waterman was
acting in his Official capacity under oath when
he registered the names which were afterwards
challenged; and when once they were enrolled
upon his books the law points out clearly and
definitely what proceedings are necessary to
overthrow the prima Jdcie right 10 vote; and
until such proceedings are had, not even the
Supreme Court could say that n single name
on that list should be stricken therefrom.
Now, what proofs were before the Supreme
Court that the names challenged by 8. w. Ma
guire, the cats-paw and tool Of the county Off
Gals Of Lander county, were fraudulently reg
istered The naked affidavit of Mcguire was
not sufficient, under the law, to authorize the
Registry Agent to strike off the names chal-
lenged, as the statute makes it simply the
foundation for subsequent proceedings, in
which the challenged party must have notice
OF time and place, in order that the Registry
Agent may hear and determine the respective
rights of the parties before it,. and, Of course.
could not be sufficient to warrant the Supreme
Court in saying that the names challenged
were fraudulent. The affidavit OF Mcguire
was the only evidence presented to the Su-
preme Court going to establish the pretended
fact that illegal names were registered. The
matters stated in the affidavit of Maguire were
denied by Judge Waterman, under oath; and
were the case presented upon its merits where
preponderaDce Of proof would be necessary
to establish a fact and authorize a Judgment
IL would fail. as the weight Of proof would be
upon the side Of the regularity of the proceed.
ings Of the sworn officer; aid hence, were the
question Of the legality Of the names chal.
lenged properly before the Supreme Court, no
Judgment could have been obtained in favor
ofLander county. But no such question was
ever before the Court, as the proceedings we're
taken not To show that n certain nnn,i., of