Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1870-06-22

warrantO, j will not now enQulre,J wOul
have to be declared invalid. The 69th sectio
Of this act, however, the one under which thi
proceeding was Instituted, provides s'tbat tn
Court shall, in judging of said.elections procee
I upon tho merits thereof" The object If a
elections being to give expression to the choic
OF the electors in the selection of their publ
agents, and servants, the merit or merits OF a.
election must consist 10 its furnishing fair
q tultand a correct expression Of this choice
Upon comparing this section with the pro
visions of the law before referred to l am salts
fed that they are directory merely, and inten
ed by the Legislature to guide the Judges ant
clerks Of elections in the performance OF thei
duties. And that though tho failure to observe
their requirements may involve violation o
duty on the part of those officers, and may
raise presumptions which, unless rehuttcd would
invalidate elections; that it is nevertheless the
duty OF courts in Judging of elections to proceed
upon the merits and to determine in favor oil
or against their validity, according as they do
or d. not, fully, fairly and correctly express the
choice Of the electors. The evidence conclu-
siVely established that at the election held in
this city on the 4th Thursday ia May none
wero prevented from voting who we're lawful
electors, and none permitted to vote who were
not. 1t further established that the returns
OF that election as corrected by the commission
ers appointed by this court, fully fairly aud
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, were it to
Withhold from those now ascertained to have been
elected, the evidence of the title to the Offices
Tor which they have been chosen.
pol,, ~, oh H,, ha,l
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.
pllance by the inspectors, with some Of the
provisions of the election laws. Tn IRE arc
various duties enjoined by law on the inspec.
tors, the great objects Of which are ID to at
ford to every citizen having constitutional
right to vote an opportunity to exercise that
right; ~ to prevent every one deprived OF
that right from voting. And 81 TO conduct
the election 10 such manEer 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 tho whole vote because the
inspectors failed to comply with every pre-.
scribed regulation, would be, as was we'll 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
crbe rule which will enable US to determine
in all cases what Irregularities OF the inspectors
Ill 80 81 4 ~, T. j,,
frmed, that If the irrcgularity does not deprive
a legal voter of his right, or admit disquai.
fed person 10 vote, if it casts no uncertainty on
the result. and has not been accustomed 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 achtch candi.
date received the greater number Of rOtes for Il
particular office at q glven electiOn'
Other authorities mi ght b, referred to, OF |
similar purport to that cited, but it would un
prolong this opinion already pro
traoted perhaps beyond its proper length For
the guidance of oficers conducting future cleo
tons, deem it proper here 10 state, that |
regard these Irregularities serious ones; that
hey were properly presented Tor investigation
BY this court, and that rest the conclusion at
which have arrived upon the fact and upon
that solely, that the evidence established be-
vond all possibility OF controversy, that the |
corrected returns of this election larry, July
and correctly expressed the choice Of the cleo
tors.
The decision of this court, therefore, Is that
OF the election held on the 4th Thursday IN
May, the following persons were elected otflcer9
of this city, VIZ:
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 Fadely, Superintendent OF Poice
T. e. Kemp and Wm. +. Finc'nt' Meas
ur rs of Lumber. :, NJ.
John T Hin, Col. Of Taxes for North \ R DIST
s. K. Field, Col. Of Taxes for South. DIST
W. n. Monroe, Guager of Liquors.
Tnos. N. Carter, City Surveyor,
Samuel Beach, Magistrate Bird Ward.
Johnathan Ward, Constable Bra Ward;
q. P. Henry. Constable 4th Ward.
and that the clerk of this court issue to them
certificates OF election TO the offices tor winch
thew have respectively been chosen.