The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1874-12-12
THE sANOTITY OF THE BALLOT.

IS THE sANOr1TY OF THE BALLOT.
= FEW FACTS FOR THE RETURNING BOARD.
% The delay in certifying the final result {
:, the election which was held on November %
causes comment here and in other States nc
a complimentary to the Returning Board. TIL
election laws were passed az soon 8
the Radical party came into power, for tn
sole purpose Of perpetuating in power tina
party. The Returning Board was invented
with no other object than to keep the contro
over the results Of elections. The law lie
prives the people of their right to appoint
their own agents.
The first board installed in power Kellogg
and crew, by certificates based wholly upon
affidavits and estimates Their action was
declared by the Supreme Court to be final,
and the mode OF manner in which the final
result was produced was beyond judicial cog
nizance. 1t was Of no consequence how out
ageous. or Illegal or fraudulent the method
was. as the law itself declared that the action
Of the board was conclusive. Such laws can
not stand the test OF constitutional criticism.
They are fatal to the rights of the people
they root out all republican governments.
Our Supreme Court in the cases of Collin
VS.. Knoblock and Of Bonner vs. Lynch % A,
pages 263 and PA, decided 'that there were
no statutes which conferred upon the courts
the power to try cases of contested elections,
| Ia 10 hat %bor tot, IA
which gave the courts the authority to revise
the action of the Returning Board. The Legis-
| lature has seen proper to lodge the power to
decide who has or who has not been elected
in the Returning Board.
Bonner was elected Judge of the Fourth
District Court beyond all doubt. The Re
turning Board gave the certificate Of election
to Lynch. That certificate, as was decided,
was conclusive. and could not be revised or
corrected. Other contestants, such as clerks
and administrators, were not permitted to
offer evidence to prove their right to the
Offices to which they were elected.
The right vested in the people to choose
their own agents was never before denied |
Informalities, Irregularities and defective re-
turns were never considered sufficient to de- |
feat an election.
We now give the findings OF Congress in
contested election cases from the large work
compiled by NJ. st. Clair Clarke. We have
not space to quote from the able speeches of
members Of Congress, or even room to give
the names
John Richards, etc, p. l.
The returns of votes, though not made with
in the time required by law, are not on that
account to be rejected provided the opportu-
nifty has been allowed the State authorities to
act upon them. But if they are substantially
Detective unaccompanied by list of the
votes. etc. they ought to be rejected. The
refusal of the Executive of a State to grant
certificate Of election does not rejudice the
light OF one who may be entitled to seat,
Fourth Ionyess-Eyrst Session John Richards
seated
Fourth Congress- First Session March, 1906
David Bard, Of Pennsylvania
Return made after time prescribed. Held
hat this irregularity did not vitiate the cleo
ion or return.
David Bard seated.
Eighth Congress, First Session-Duncan Nc =
Farand vs.. Samuel D. Purviance, of
North Carolina ID
The neglect or refusal Of the inspectors or
Jerks of elections, to comply with the re-
luisitions OF the election laws Of the State, as
o taking the oaths prescribed. etc, vitiates !
he election.
1t appears also to have been conceded that s
he election in one county Of district being
old, does not vacate the seat of the sitting r
member, having the majority in the other =
county. 1
eleventh Congress. First Session-Charles
Tnrner, Jr., vs. William Baylies, of Mas
sachusetts. Turner seated 9th of June 1
1909. IL
A candidate is entitled to the benefit of all I
allots which are manifestly intended for him, Y
hough they omit the addition of the word y
Junior, by which he is usually known.
Eleventh Congress. Second Session Thomas
Randolph rs. Jonathan Jennings. delegate Z
from Indiana. v
It was alleged in this case that part Of the
etes constituting the sitting members major 7
y were not properly certified by the poll 2
eepers agreeably to the law of the territory, q
nd that they ought not to have been received. r
nd it was further alleged that two districts :
a county were prevented from voting by
le omission or mistake of the sheriff The
eport of the Committee was adverse to the r
ting member, but was not concurred in by !.
lie House. Jennings retained his seat. =
ourteenth Congress- First Session. 1876
Willoughby vs.. Smith, Of New York. IL
The errors and omissions Of inspectors and r
stunning officers are to be corrected, so as
} do substantial justice to the parties. The
mission in this case was Of the word "u- in
ior. but it vas held upon the proof given nj
IT to vitiate the votes. CT
Willoughby Jr.. seate!. ~