The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-06-04
The Deadlock In tho New Hamp-
shire Legislature.


shire Legislature.
We will try to explain this exciting middle
SO as to make it ineligible to readers not
accustomed 10 the constitutional forms OF
New Hampshire. 1t must be promised that
IN that State it requires an absolute majority
of the votes cast to elect public officers
has 1900 votes, B 1000 and @ 800, is not
elected, as he would be in New York. The
1900 votes against him as effectually prevent
his election as if they had all been given for
one candidate. Another requirement OF the
New Hampshire laws is that the full Christian
name and the full surname of the candidates
voted for shall be printed or written on the
ballots, and that all ballots which misspeu or
abbreviate the name except that the initial
| letter of middle names suffices) must be
thrown out as null and not counted at all any
more than If they were SO many pieces Of
blank paper.
Now it so happened in the Second Sem
atorial district that there were three candi-
dates-James Priest, democrat; Nathaniel
Head, republican, and Joshua O. Merrill,
prohibitionist-Priest having more votes than
either of the others, Head standing next, and
Merrill receiving enough, with Heads votes,
| to make majority against Priest and defeat
the election of Senator in that district.
This would have been the result of the poll if
Heads name had been correctly spelled on
his ballots. But instead of Nathaniel Head
they were printed "Natt" Head, and by an
explicit provision of law they should have
been flung out and not counted
OF all, treating them as blank and
void. Priest, the democratic candidate, had
majority of the legal votes, and his title to the
seat is unquestionable according to the laws
of the State. The republicans do not admit
this, but the law is so plain and precise that
their argument founded on the intention of
the voters cannot stand for moment in the
estimation OF any impartial person capable of
reading and constituting statute. So far the
democrats are clearly right and the republi-
cans wrong.
But this is not the whole Of the case. The
election law is clear, but who is authorized to
apply it? There is no doubt as to whose
duty it is to apply it in the first instance, nor
who is to apply itN in the last resort as the
final judge. AS votes for ''Natt" Head were
illegal and null, it was the duty of the local
election officers to throw them out and not
count them; but as they did count and return
them, it is the duty of the Senate itself to
rectify their mistake. The constitution of the
State makes the Senate the judge of the cleo
ton and qualification Of its own members,
and Its judgment is final and cannot
be reviewed But there happens to be an
intermediate body standing between the local
officers and the Senate which is authorized to
canvass the election returns and Professionally
declare the result This canvassing body
consists Of the Governor and set of official
advisers called the Council. The New Hamp-
shire republicans contend, with great seeming
force, that the State constitution does not
authorize the Governor and Council to 90
behind the returns Of the local election
officers but requires them to state the result
Of those returns as actually received, the rec
tifcation of illegal returns belonging to the
Senate itself, which is the final judge Of
their validity. And just here Is the real
pinch of the controversy, in which the
republicans are probably right and the demo-
Gratis wrong. But the mistake of the Gov
Il
Senate, which is not bound by their action.
The Senators to whom they gave certificates
had primo fdcie title to the seats which the
republicans were legally bound to recognize
until the Sell ate took up the disputed claims
for final action. But instead of this the re-
publican Senators seeded in body, the
minority assuming to decide a question
1 ~ Infa al -,
the whole Senate acting in its organized ca
pacity. The republicans are wrong IN every
part of the controversy except in disputing
the authority Of the Governor and Council
to 60 behind the election returns
These canvassers decided correctly o
question which they had no legal
right to decide at all, and on this point the
whole question hinges. The election in the
Fourth Senatorial district is involved in
similar dispute, differing only in the fact that
the rejected votes were given Tor a candidate
who had only resided four years IN the State
whereas the constitution requires q residence
OF seven years to make person eligible for
Senator. 1t is just as clear that the law for
bids the counting of these votes as those for
"Natf' Head and the right Of the Governor
and Council to throw them ont after the local
officers had returned them is open TO dispute
on precisely the same grounds.
Pending this deadlock in the Senate caused
by the withdrawal Of tho republican Senators
the House, after organizing with q republican
majority, has taken up the subject But, as
the State constitution makes each house the
Judge Of the election Of its own members, it
is not apparent by what right the House con-
Germs itself With the election and qualifca-
tons Of Senators. They propose to refer the
question to the courts but as the constitu-
-tion makes each branch Of the Legislature,