The Idaho world. [volume] (Idaho City, Idaho Territory) 1864-1918, 1875-02-06

kv New York. 0C Ch0 iuto ctSo.'v' rr:u.. th.
thnlsand votes were cast tor 1udRo H."o.'
democratic candidate for the court ~ ap Roart
With the Endorsement For Judge .. : .no .h..
~ a ApP = "a ssociate Judge Of the Court OF Ap,
oMI Ss .nI TIA detective votes were rejected
-. state canvassers. on the ground that mo
svoh o4f;ca ns Judge of the Court Of Appeals Is
san,,,n tn the Constitution" The error ald
not oifsct the result. Judge Miller's plutausy
"vsr h,s competitor, Judge johnson, osins
nearly forty-six thousand, without the detect
iva votes The members Of the board o. can
vasears who rejected these votes because OF
clar;cal mistake like this-One which cou!9 nov
nnss;hlv be- understood-pu6llshed them
ss.lves either az rogues or fools There Is alto
rather too much Of such nonsense IN the con-
Snct IF Judges of elections aud canvass'ng
boards. If a judge on the bench should %
guilty If it. his conduct would meet Win u'''
versal reprobation.
The foregoing is from the pen OF Hon. Jo"n
F. Dillon, contributing editor of the Ce"fr"'
Lam Journal, a publication generally rec'g'
nixed among respectable lawyers as authorita-
t;vs and ia reproduced in the columns OF the
WORLD because. Of its direct applicability to
the arbitrary and unlawful act Of our board Oh
canyassers in the Fun Bennett election case
ofjAst fall Our readers will remember that
the votes in that case were rejected because
nolled for Hon. S. S. 'Fenn-the candidate
name being S. s. Fem; and because board
of election Judges somewhere up north, not
knowing the law. failed to comply with single
one. and only one. Of its minor provisions. rela'
t;no 70 the manner in which returns were to Be
made to the Territorial canvassing board.
merely clerical blunder on the part OF the cleo
ton Judges in no wise affecting or endangerins
the purity Of elections. Upon this pretext our
board of partisan and carpet.bag canvassers
the Governor being one f.the beard. and can
didate whose election was to be directly at
fected BY his act. threw out the votes OF three
counties, thereby changing the result OF the
popular vote. and in the language OF Judge
Dillon. publishing themselves either as rogue'
mr. FOOLS" The act Of the hoard was an insul
to the popular intelligence Of the Territory
and rs such we denounced it at the time; tn
other papers Of the Territory without an eA
eeptivu either approved the villainy or wer
silent on the subject, and they age edited b.
legal pretenders: but We knew We had com
mon sense on our side, and We now have big
legal authority with US who expresses his Assem-
to our views Of such acts in language impatien
a. 1t 10 strong. We ask our bat-eyed censor
who. pulled up with coneeit OF their own great
meas and the legal profundity of Bennest& Co
accuse Us Of Misrepresentation and Ignorance
to read Judge Dillon's contemptuous DISMISS
of the subject. and ask themselves. not wheshe
We or the board are right, but whether it
more probable that one of the first lawyers j
America is mistaken about question Of la'
20 simple as to be understood BY nine-tenths I
the voters Of the county. or whether our boar
Of canvassers acted corrupuy in the matte
Certain we are that there il not judicial tr
bunL in the United States but would decid
the case Of Fem and Bennett in exact acco
dance with the opinion given above. and Their
fore We have denounced the act and shall col
tinue to denounce it rs altogether inexcusabl
and let ring tools make the m"st oft
Tow pAIyEsS hones are being sasrched Il