Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1874-12-17
The Decision Of the Supreme
Court.

The unwarranted and wholly illegal
action of the Wood County Board of
Canvassers has been so thoroughly ex-
posed and ventilated that further ref
erence thereto would seem unnecessary.
But III giving the decision of the Su-
preme Court, we are constrained to
revert to it briefly. Undoubtedly the
Board had no intention of affecting the
result of the Congressional contest by
its action /; its prime purpose aud sole
object being the re-establishing in pow
or of a set Of candidates among whom
were some who must needs be retained
to serve as cover to the political
county governmental pot from whence
the savory food had been extracted, lest
the eyes of the "good people Of Wood
County " should behold the financial
vacum--a set of candidates receiving a
minority vote and in nowise entitl ed to
the positions they would steal
by practiced system Of fraud as black
as night, as wicked as the treason of
Judas. But their action has had an
unlocked for effect but one, however,
in which they rejoice with exceeding
great JOY. The Congressional contest
SIS affected by the action of the board,
and the consequence is, that Judge
Cate is given the certificate Of election
to which DR.. McDill is lawfully and
legally entitled.
The returns made to the State Board
of Canvassers, it was held by that
board, mast be the evidence of election
upon which it must grant a certificate
Of election. The case was carefully
argued by the contestants through their
attorneys, Hon. II. S. Orion for Nc
Dill, and S. U. Pinney for Judge
Cate. Mr.. Orion informed the board
that he would Immediately apply to
the Supreme Court for writ Of man
damus commanding the board to deter
mine and certify that McDilI was duly
elected.
The effort made to have the COM
plete returns of Wood County for
warded to the State Board signally
failed, and the decision of the question
was left to the Supreme Court, to be
decided as a question of law, rather
than of equity, resulting in decision
adverse to the relator, and in direct OPP
position to the expressed will of a ma
jority of the voters of the Sth congress
sional district. We have no DISPOSE
ton to criticise the action Of the
Court, or complain of its decree which
virtually (through the rasoality of in
triguers in Wood County, declares
minority vote to be the critic rian bv
which the people are to determine as
to whom shall have been elected to any
position within the gilt of the people.
The length Of the opinion given by
Judge Lyon prohibits its publication
entire in the REPORTER, but certain
portions of it we give for the edifca-
tion Of our thoughtful readers.
:" We cannot determine the right to
the office, but only the duty of the
Board Of State CanvasseIs in respect
to the canvass. The power to deter
mine the right is. by the Constitution
of the United States. vested exclusive
ly in the House of Representatives,
Art. l., sec. % Hence We cannot go
behind the returns and correct frauds
and mistakes, and adjudge which of
the candidates was elected. but can on
" determine whether the State Board
of Csnvassers ought to include in its
canvass and statemenq of the votes for
Representative in Congress those re-
turned from Wood County. This pro-
position is not controversial.
Neither is it claimed that the board
may receive testimony atiuade the re
turns before them, to sustain or invali-
date such returns. These must stand
or fall by what appears ia them. Hence
if the return from Wood County is, on
It's face, what the law requires it to be,
however false or fraudulent it may be
in fact, it must be received and the
votes returned therein must be in
cluded in the canvass. IN such case
the board has no authority to reject
such return. The question, therefore,
is, whether the return from Wood
County is valid on its face; or (stated
in another form} does the statement of
the canvass of the votes, and the re-
suit of the election made by the Board