Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1875-10-28

canvass, REJECT lne NoI0S " any VI
them for any irregularities or defects
of the Registers. The defense which
the defendant now sets up for his
usurpation of office, appears to have
been an after-thought, which cannot
mitigate his breach of duty then.
The Board of County Canvassers
did reject the returns from the town
of Lincoln and the first ward of
Grand Rapids, for alleged illegality
and effectiveness, not in the election,
but in the returns themselves not
now relied on by the defendant.
The rejection of these returns, Who'll
ly unauthorized, gave excuse to the
defendant and his associates in the
Board of Canvassers to declare the
defendant himself elected County
Clerk. This was a most indecent
and fragrant violation of duty; too
palpable for blunder; too corrupt for
any mercy of construction. If the
returns from the town and ward were
so informal and incompetent the
language of the Board of Canvass
ers, SO illegal and defective-that the
Board could not canvass them, it was
the duty of the defendant and his
associates to dispatch a messenger
for corrected returns. 7dylor's Stat.
Chapt. Of Sec. SO. State Us. PER-
pont, 20, Wis. 1OS: State Us. Board
State Canvassers, Supra. A County
Clerk cannot be tolerated in so tam
pering with his Statutory duty; in 50
battling the constitutionally express
ed will of the voters of his County,
to keep himself in Office to which
another is elected, by violation of
his official oath and duty. Speaking
Of this very canvass, it was said in
State as. Board of State Cd,aDdsserS
Supra, "There is nothing in the
Statement of this Board Of County
Canvassers showing or tending to
show, neither was it claimed on the
argument of the demurrer, that any
effort was made to procure corrected
returns from the rejected town or
ward. On the contrary, the silence
of their statement on that subject
the suppression Of the nature OF the
alleged defects in such returns for
which they were rejected: and the
fact that it does not appear that the
Board awaited itself of the power
given by law to adjourn for the pur-
pose of procuring corrected returns,
leave upon our minds most painful
impression that the County Canvass
ers utterly neglected their duty in
this respect, and illegally and wan
tonly disfranchised all the voters who
voted at such election in the rejected
town and ward. If they did so, they
committed most serious offence;
an offence which strikes at the very
foundations of our system of govern
ment, and which cannot be too Sc
verely censured. Thus it was, that
we felt justified in saying, during the
argument of the demurrer, that he
who by fraud or by wilful disregard
of his sworn duly, defeats the will of
the people as expressed by their
votes, commits political crime next
to treason and near akin to it; and
that this Court will never fail, on
any proper occasion, to characterize
such an offence in fitting terms"
The shameful truth, suggested in
that case, is apparent in this. Then
we could only censure, now we can
punish. Sec. 16 of Chapt. 100, r.
S., under which this proceeding is
taken contains the ancient and salu-
tary power of imposing fine on the
usurping officer, in such cases, to the
extent of $4,000. Such a Statute, In
such cases as this, should not he a
dead letter. If any defendant in any
case of quo Waro,atO can earn such
fine, this defendant has earned it
in this. 1t is our duty, now about
to be fulfilled, to GUST him from an
office which he has usurped for one
third Of the official term, by willful
malfeasance in office, corrupt in fact
as in law. And we should feel this
court to be, in some sort, his parti-
ceps cr'imiuus, if, in doing so, we
should refuse to exercise the power