The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1872-05-25
The Conscsrea school Election Case.

Inc proceedings OF the meeting of the city
council, held on Tuesday evening, were Of I'M
usual Interest. The council had adjourned from
the previous meeting to hear evidence on the
contested election case for school director of the
fourth ward. Mr.. kellogg, the incumbent was
represented by Mr.. Mayo, and Mr.. Leshy. the
contestant by Mr. Jones.
Mr.. Mayo addressed the coune: in behslflof
his client, urging the council to dismiss the case
for want of Jurisdiction. He maintained that
no body had power to adjudicate upon an election
outside Of itself. The board Of edacstion was a
corporate body entirely independent of the city
council, and the whole extent of the power of
the latter with reference to the former was simp-
~ to declare the number Of votes that had been
cast In support of his view the learned gentle.
man quoted Secs. AZ TO 40 of the revised stat.
utss of 1915, together with the amendment. Of
1855 and 81 affecting the same. Contending
were only ministerial, be moved the council to
dismiss the case.
Mr.. Jones, in reply, submitted the act amend.
ing the incorporation of the board of school di.
rectors, arguing that by this measure the city
council wa the proper constituted tribunal to
adjudge in the Gaze, and that their jurisdiction
with reference to the election Of school direct.
ors was concurrent with that Of aldermen. He
believed that the city council had power to de-
termine the legality Of This election, irrespective
OF the returns OF the judges Of election There
was no other tribunal having cognizaAce, aud
fba .it b.3 ~, ia 80
therein
After brief reply by Mr.. Mayo, the ayes and
noes were called upon motion Of Aid. Stout to
dismiss the case, which resulted as follows
Ayes; Aids. Stout, Smith, Phelps, Huston and
Mattes-5. Noes; Redmond, Rabenstein. Nc.
Ginuis, Miller and Fields
This being tie, Mayor Boyle addressed the
council and substantially said: This is ques-
tion of law. He had examined the law affect.
ing the matter with very great care. He then
reviewed the arguments Of the learned council,
and stated that he greatly doubted the jurisdc.
ton Of ID. council in the premises, but II the
case we're summarily dismissed, manifest wrong
would be done 10 the constituency Of the fourth
ward. II the were continued ueiore the
council, and either part. fel. sggrieved by the
action OF that body, redress could be obtained in
the higher courts. Under these circumstances
and notwithstanding his grave lnisgivings, he
should vote that the case be proceeded with.
Afidavits we're submitted by both parties re-
garding the legality o. the vote OF Alexander
Richards the one side showing he had forfeited
his vote in Ottawa by the removal OF bis family
to Farm Ridge, while. On the other hand. Rich.
ard. deposition set forth su,, such removal was
only temporary.
Arguments oi council having been heard,
Aid. Stout moved that Mr.. kelloy had been du.
" elected, which was lost On this division :
Ayes Stout, Smith and Phelp.--3. Noes Red
mond, Huston, Rehens,eIn. McGinui-, Mates.
Miller uai FieIds--.. motion declaring the
vote Of &. Richards was legal was lo.t by .mi-
lar division. An ex- rniu.'iou OF TIE poll books
proved that the vote OF Richards had been ca-.
for Mr. Kellogg, and j. being stricken out, H tie
between him and Mr.. Leahy the result.
The Mayor then, in accordance with the ordi-
nance, drew lots, and Mr., Kellogg's name being
drawn, he was declared duly elected.
The proceedings were brea,hlessly listened to
throughout by large and interested crowd cut.
side the bar.