The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1875-11-04


The Postofficc organ Is endeavoring to
make rumpus in regard to the action
Of Secretary Of State Bell in sending
back the returns Of the election in w Wood
county to the Clerk Of the county for
correction. On opening the returns Of
this county, the Secretary Of State dis
covered that there was no evidence Of
an election having been held in Perrys-
burg township. and addressed the Clerk
the following letter; l45s0
a columbus, o., Oct. 2s, 1875.
CLERK Common Pleas Wood county, o.
my DEAR SIR Upon examination Of
the abstract Of votes cast in your county
at the recent election, we discover that
an error exists, in that there is nothing
indicating that an election was held in
Perrysburg township. Feeling fully sat
ished that il Is oversight on your part, |
herewith return it for correction or ex-
planation
very respectfully,
"WM. BELL, JR.,
Secretary Of State"
Although it is impossible for Secretary
Bell to force correction Of the returns
or to refuse to receive them if not cor
rected, still in discovering as gross an
omission, It was not only his right but
his duty to call the attention of the Clerk
to the matter. We are well aware that
the vote canvassed and declared by the
Legislature is upon returns sent directly
to that body, and not those sent to the
Secretary Of State, so that it is immaterial
as regards the State ticket or members
Of the Legislature whether the returns
are corrected or not, The only parties
to be affected by the outrage Of the Clerk
in disfranchising the entire people of a
township on the pretense that illegal
votes have been polled there, is the peo-
pie of Wood county. By his action he
has simply reelected himself Clerk, and
il he is right in the matter, can continue
to re.elect himself by throwing out votes
opposed to him, until Gabriel sounds his
trumpet; and he has retained the county
seat at the place Of his residence, where
he has property that would be affected
by the change. We stated yesterday
that the Clerk had no more power to de-
eide as TO the validity Of votes, than any
outside individual, and to sustain our po-
sition, we quote from the statutes, See
Swan & Critch6eld, page s36, section
al: "In making the abstract of votes,
the Justices and Clerk shall not decide
on the validity Of the returns aforesaid,
but shall be governed by the number of
votes stated in the poll-book."
And in decision Of the Supreme
Court in the case of Ingerson VS.. Berry,
(Ohio Report 322), the Court held:
THE aggregate result of the returns
exhibited by the several poll-books are
to be ascertained by arithmetical calcu-
lation, and cannot be controlled by the
discretion of the persons performing the
duty. Such counting Of votes, making
of abstracts, which exhibit the result,
and giving certificates accordingly, are
duties which fall within the province of
clerk and accountant, they admit Of no
discretion and are in their nature minis
terial."
1t will thus be seen that the action of
the Clerk was a high-handed outrage,
without law to sustain it, and the Jour
nal can take either horn of the dilemma
it chooses - of having defended him
through ignorance, or with the desire to
abet rascality - Columbus DisbatrA.