The silver state. [volume] (Unionville, Nev.) 1870-1903, 1876-11-21
Communicated
INELIGIBLE ELECTORS.

disqualification of certain Presidential
Electors. The case of Larcy We. Grow,
Fifteen California Reports) and the
State ex rel Nurse vs., Clark Nevada
Reports) both support in their in
terpretations of the Constitutions of
California and Nevada. which on the
point in question are identical, the
views advanced by tie Chronicle to
the extent that no person is eligible to
hold State office who labored under
q Constitutional disability at the time
of his election to that office. While
isolated cases may be found not in
harmony with this view, they generally
rest upon different statutory FONDA
dations. One case, viz: The State VS..
Murray (2S Wis. 96-9 Am. Reports
1897 seems to clash with the general
tenor of decisions on this point, but in
that case the Court seemed to have
found no sustaining precedent, bat as
sumed the question to be "new
one," and felt free to decide it on what
they deemed " sound principles.
1t is safe to assert that the bulk of
American authorities are in accord
with the views of the Chronicle on the
proposition that the candidate must be
eligible at the time of election in or-
der to be eligible to hold the State
office. But upon this point the Con-
stitution of the United States is more
explicit than the Constitutions of Cali
fornia and Nevada. 1t provides that
no person holding Federal Office of
trust and profit shall be appointed an
Elector. The manner of appointing
Electors is left to the Legislatures OF
the several States. Most generally the
State Legislatures have delegated the
power of choosing Electors directly to
the people. And if an Elector labors
undera Constitutional disability when
the people vote for him he does not
become eligible by removing such dis
ability before the vote is counted or
the result announced or certificate of
election issued. But the Chronicle is
perhaps in error as to when the resig-
nation takes effect. The Court in the
case of State ex rel Nurse VS., Clark,
cited by the Chronicle, holds that it
takes effect when unconditionally
offered beyond the incumbent's power
of revocation, without regard to when
it is received by the authority legally
competent to act upon it. This is GER
tainly the American doctrine, although
perhaps at variance with the English
rule on the subject.
The remaining proposition of the
Chronicle, that the ineli9ibility of one
candidate necessarily elects his oppo-
nent, who does not get as many votes,
is only true under certain conditions.
Unless the voters giving their support
to the ineligible candidate did so under
circumstances fairly warranting the
conclusion that they knew they were
thus throwing their votes away the
rule would be that there was no
election. This view is sustained by
Sublett VS.. Bedwill al Miss. Reports,
33S) and cases cited on page 341-2;
also, People ex rel Furman vs.. Chute
$50 N. Y. CT. Appeals, found also in
10 Am. Reports, 50S).
To apply the rule deducible from
the supposed Oregon case, let us say
the disqualified Elector was post
master (who did not resign before elec-
ton day. performing the functions Of
his Office in town where he received
five hundred votes. The legal pre-
sumption would probably be INDUCED
that the fact that he was postmaster
was patent to the five hundred of his
townsmen voting for him, and they
would probably be charged with
knowledge of the Constitution of the
United States. by which such post
master is rendered ineligible to be
chosen, and being SO charged with
notice of the fact and of the law, which
coupled with the fact, disqualified the