Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1870-06-22
warrauto, I will not now enauire,] would

|
have to be declared invalid. The 69th sectio
of this act, however, the one under which ,th
proceeding was Instituted, provides 'that tn
Court shall, in judging of said.electons procee
upon the merits thereof" The object If a
elections being to give expression to the choic
OF the electors 10 the selection of their publ
agents and servants, the merit or merits OF al
election must consist in its furnishing fair
!ultand correct expression Of this choice
Upon comparing this section with the pro
visions of the law before referred to | am salts
lied that they are directory merely. and inten
ed BY the Legislature to guide the Judges ant
clerks Of elections in the performance OF the
duties. Aud that though tho failure to observe
their requirements may involve q violation o
duty on the part of those officers, and may
raise presumptions which, unless rehutted would
invalldate elections that it Is nevertheless tho
duty OF courts in jud ging Of elections to proceed
upon the merits and to determine in favor OIL
or against their validity, according as they do
or d. uot,fuy, fairly and correctly express the
choice Of the electors The evidence conclu
siVely established that at the election held in
this city on the 18th Thursday 10 May none
were prevented from voting who were lawful
not 1t further established that the returns
OF that election as corrected by the commission
ers appointed by this court, fully, fairly. and
correctly expressed the choice OF the electors
for the different Offices voted Tor at that cleo
ton. Under these circumstances this court
could not claim in Judging OF this election to
have proceeded upon It's merits, we're it to
Withhold from those now ascertaincd TO have been
elected, the evidence of the title to the Offices
for which they have been chosen.
This conclusion which thus far has been pre-
dcated upon construction Of the election law,
is fully supported by the authorities cited dur
ing the argument. La the case OF the People
VS. Cook, a case bearing marked analogy to
the one under consideration, the court ofappeals
Of New York speaks as follows: "The defend
ant failing to show the return false seeks to re.
ject 1t altogether on account of the Hon com.
pliance by the inspectors, with some Of the
provisions of the election laws. tn ere arc
tors, the great objects Of which are ID to at
right to vote an opportunity to exercise that
right; (2) to prevent every one deprived of
that right from voting. And 81 to conduct
the election 10 such manner in point OF form
that the true number of legal votes can be as
certained with certainty. If all these objects
be accomplished as they seem to have been in
this case, to reject the whole vote because the
inspectors failed to comply with every pre-.
scribed regulation, would be, as was well re-
marked by one of the judges in the court be.
low, to place higher value on the statute re
gulation, than on the right itself. 1t would
be q sacrifice OF substance to form And
again:-"it is probably impracticable to pres
cribe rule which will enable US to determine
in all cases what Irregularities OF the inspectors
will vitiate an election. 1t may be safely at.
frmed, that if the irrcgularity does not deprive
a legal voter of his right, or admit disquali |
fed person 10 vote, if it casts no uncertainty on
the result, and has not been ocoassioned by the |
agency of the party seeking to derive benefit |
from it, it may be overlooked in an action OF |
this kind, when the issue Is to be whtch candi |
date received the greater number of rOtes for II
particular office at q given eIectton.
Other authorities ght b, referred to, Of a
similar purport to that cited, but it would IN
prolong this opinion already pro
tracted perhaps beyond its proper length. For
the guidance of officers conducting future cleo.
tions l deem it proper here 10 state, that
regard these Irregularities serious ones; that
hey were properly presented for Investigation
" this court and that rest the conclusion ut
which have arrived upon the tact and upon
that solely, that the evidence established be-
yond all possibility Of controversy, TINT the
returns of this election LARRY, tuly |
and correctly expressed the choice OF the cleo
tors.
The decision of this court, therefore, Is that
OF the election held on the 18th Thursday 10
May, the following persons were elected officers
of this city, Wig:
Hugh Latham, Mayor: !
Robert S. Ashby, Auditor.
w. D. Corse Treasurer.
' Morton Marye, Clerk Corporation Court
Jacob Roxbury, Superintendent Of Gas.
H. X. Bradshaw, Commissioner Revenue.
James Nj. Stewart, City Sergeant
James Fadcly, Superiutenacnt OF Poi'ee.
T. q. Kemp and Wm. L. Vincent, Meas
ur rs of Lumber. ~ :, H..
John T. Hill. Co.. of Taxes for North. DIST
S. K Field, Co.. Of Taxes for South o'sf'
w. n. Monroe, Guager of Liquors.
Tbos. N. Carter, City Surveyor,
Samuel Beach, Magistrate 3rd Ward.
Johnathan Ward, Constable Bra Ward;
g. P. Henry, Constable 4th Ward.
ard that the clerk of this court issue to them
certificates Of election TO the Offices tor which
they have respectively been chosen.