The New York herald., 1871-11-12

Wero oIg0 1n6uctoo 70 give ov0Iy Cit1cn cusitcu "
vote an opportunity TO do so IN perfect safety"
"was II not charged openly bv General Tracey
that you refused 70 interfere putting inspector
back st the DOLLS from which ne had been turned
outW
"Yes; ON Tuesday morning General Tracey called
upon me and told that inspector at one OF the
districts Of the First ward-I forget the district
numper-had been removed as inspector. and asked
al me what be WOULD do in the case. lie said the su-
perv,sor Of tie NaEd had removed him from his
post and had placed another Inspector in his stead.
| told MIN knew nothing about the authority OF
the Supervisor OF the ward. He called the inspector
into my ofice, ana that gentleman showed me his
certificate as inspector. I asked him II Mr.,
Bishop the CITY cerk nsa mot mot sent nc for him He
the Seconfward and said he tine Inspector mad
no right to act as Inspector. asked him II he was
he cSuid vote the state ticket there asked nlm If
he could vote the city. Judiciary and Aldermanic
eral Tracey mat had no right to interfere IN the
matter; that II must be settled between the
supervisor OF the wara and amy person tnss nat
the General said that he would investigate
the case. and, bidding me Good day.
" Gsxoa, o0p to TN the ' esc. as that refused M
to send the returns OF election republican head
Ss mass have BEEN he would not
have made such . statement never was asked TO
n the RepSDicsn Committee and mad been asked 10
do 90 certainly should have rendered all the facii-
ties IN my power to enable them 70 CLEAN the returns
you how lar politics entered into my m,nd In the IN.
terview with Mr.. Tracey never asked hlm what the
quarters from nine O'Clock on Tuesday morning un-
I'll Ave O'Clock Wednesday evenlng-tw days.h
aiiniss eriaI or Judicial Capacity Of tho
Board Of Canvassers.
OroN ,ntpreat n unOn std cOncprn
ing the course which the Boards Of City and County
Oanvassers will pursue IN regard to the ''mixed
returnsn ana the final disposition OF the candidates
OF both parties whose election Is disputed ln view
OF this fact the sublOlned opinions Of the legal
gentlemen named Will De found interesting.
Ex-Judge Reynolds' View Of the Situation.
Ex-Judre Reynolds, one Of the most respected
and able members Of she Kings county bar, speak
ing Of the oficial capacity Of the Board OF Super
visors acting as Board OF Canvassers, said that 1t
was his impression that tine Board could act only
ministerial capacity. They have no power to 60
behind the returns, and must accept them as they
are. The only remedy Tor wrong doing is
for an injured candidate to commence proceedings
by writ Of quo Uaridnt0 compelling the productlon
office.
The Board can afford no relief and can prescribe
no punishment. He did not see how, In any way,
1t can be supposed to exercise judicial authority.
The remedy against fraudulent voting lies with the
District AI'orney. It rests WIN MIN TO a nunt OUT
and punish the Offenders lie was confident that
Mr.. Winchester Britt0n lthe democratic District
Attorney elect VIII do this, and believed that he
would be Jealous and energetic prosecutor.
Judge Barnard
Is OF the opinion that the Board Of Supervisors as
Board acJ purely and entirely in o ministerial ca
pacity. They must take the returns as they appear
on their face. there be any deficiency the face
ot the which be corrected by inspectors
OF election they must send for those inspectors
and cause those corrections 70 be made.
Wnen the returns have been once signed
by the inspectors Of election the Board
OF Canvassers must prevent their making any
alteration correcting any except merely clerical
errors. The Board has refused the application Of
democrats when they have asked for corrections
and alterations There Is no judicial power IN any
Board Of the kind clear up to the Board OF State
Canvassers. Their decision Is not nna, and
q writ OF quo Tarranto can operate where
they are unable ,n to ACT They dec,srs are
the result, and they are liable % q mandamus. 1t
Ii the only remedy against them when they have
not performed their functions. They don't appear
TO me to have any authority to administer an oath.
The "Election Law new edition. OF 1871, on page
Votes % as county canvassers the Chairman is
authorized 10 administer the oath 60 the members OF
se oan ain % So
they have neither capacity to swear Witnesses nor
to lake sworn evidence: NO proceedings FOR pef,afy
falsely before them. They have power, OF course,
as Board OF Supervisors, 70 take evidence in the
the Board OF Aldermen. the state Legislature,
and the houses Of Congress can investigate the cleo.
tiOn OF their own MEMBERS But the Board OF Can
vassers "a not Identical wish tue Board OF Super
vs0rs. The President OF the Board Of SUPERVISORS
Canvassers. The power Of the latter Board is
to canvass or estimate votes and TO make state
ment. They have the power to declare what men,
bers OF Assembly and what county officers have
been elected. They may require mistakes, merely
clerical 20 be corrected. Thus II an inspector
should return that John smith has received 5000
yorcs they can make that inspector insert the ONCE
for which John Smith received those votes. They
cannot require ward inspectors TO change or alter
any decision already made BY them. In short, the
Board OF Canvassers have no power 10 administer
an oath or to make anv investigation, and they
shall not cause any return to be changed or altered