Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1876-11-24
NE Electoral Question.

The following abstract Of Attorney Gen
eral Taft's opinion on the question regard
ing Electors disqualified by reason Of ineli-
gibility, is telegraphed from Washington
The Attorney General first discusses the
question whether an election Of an inelisl-
Bile candidate necessarily allows the candi-
date having the next highest number OF
votes to come in The British rule Is that
where an ineligible man is candidate, that
the eligible candidate having the next high
es. number Of votes shall be elected. Upon
this subject he makes an argument based
upon extracts from "AlcCrary Upon Election
Laws" showing that all precedents and rul-
ings are against allowing British rule to OBJ
tain in this country. lie cites the case OF
Smith vs.. Brown e Bartlett, 395) in which,
in an able report submitted by Mr. Davies,
Chairman Of the Committee on Elections,
authorities are reviewed, and the conclusion
| is reached that the law of the British Par
lament in this particular has never been
adopted in this country, and is wholly inap-
plicable to our system OF government: The
courts CT this country generally take the
same view. Thus, in Commonwealth vs..
Cluley, Sc Penn. statutes, K. go,
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held
that where. at an election for sheriff,
majority of the votes is cast for
disqualified person, the next in the vote Is
not to be returned or elected and the Su-
preme Court of California. in Saunders VS.
HAYNES 13 California, l i5), holds the same
doctrine and enforces it by cogent reasoning
in Wisconsin We have the same ruling IN
State vs. Giles FIRST Choud, ll2), and in
State vs. Smith, l4th Wisconsin, 49I, and
see opinions of judges in 80 Maine, 59l, In
State vs. BOol, 46, No. 52S; Gushing Flee
ton case, 496, SIC, and see State vs.. Ander-
son Il Cox, New jersey, 3lS); People VS..
Chute, so, New York. In Indiana the doc
trine of English authorities has been fol-
lowed.
1t will be seen that the weight Of au:hori-
ty in this country is decidedly against the
adoption here of English doctrine, and we
think that sound policy as well as reason
and authority forbid the adoption Of the
doctrine in this country. 1t is funda-
mental idea with US that the majority shall
rule, and that majority, or at least plu-
rality, shall be required to elect person to
Office by popular vote. An election with US
Is the deliberate choice of majority or plu-
rality of electors. Any doctrine which
opens the way for minority rule in our case
is anti-RepuDlican and anti-American. Eng
lish rule, if adhered to, would in many
cases result in compelling very large
maiorities TO submit to very small
minorities, or an ineligible person
NAV receive, and, in many cases has
received, q great majority of votes. 1t
is enough in such a case to hold the election
void. 1t appears that the United States Sen
ate has already established precedent upon
this point, for this question was deliberately
discussed and settled so far as the Senate OF
the United States was concerned in the case
of Joseph c. Abbott, of South Carolina. The
decision in that case was against the adcp-
ton of English rule, and Abbott. who, not
withstanding he received only minority Of
votes cast, claimed the seat upon the ground
that he was the only eligible person voted
for. vas declared not elected, and 1t was
distinctly asserted in the report of the COM
mittee that the fact that voters have notice
Of ineligibilty Of candidates at the time they
cast their votes for them makes no differ
cnce. The remark of Judge Story IN Com
monwealth rs. Cluley, that "a disqualified
person is person still and every vote thrown
Tor him is final, =" is quoted with appreciation.
The broad doctrine was asserted that in this
country an election by minority OF persons
voting is not to be tolerated.
We find in the New York Tunes mention
of case which came before the New York
Court Of Appeals, in 1872, whereina candidate
for a municipal Office, who received a minor
ity of the votes cast, claimed possession on the
ground, which was established, tina. his op-
ponent was ineligible at the time Of the
election. The Court Of Appeals denied the
claim. 1t ruled that the majority candidate
could not hold the Office, but It declined to
give it to the other candidate, holding that
Tho defendant the majority candidate was
disqualified from holding the Office that his
election was void, and conferred upon hin
no title to his Office that, there being no
proof of notice to the electors OF such dis
qualification. nor Of facts from which knowl-
edge or notice could be presumed, neither Of
the candidates acquired title to the office, and
the election was failure" This seems TO
be good common sense. as well as good law.
There can be no equity, certainly, in the calm
that because a majority have voted Tor an
ineligible person, they shall be held to have
elected the very man they intended to
defeat.
The New York sun, which, being a
prolesscdly independent paper, out-herods
Herod in Democratic plrtisanship, goes the
length Of claiming that, if single
disqualified person receives majority OF
votes for Elector, there has been "a failure
to chose or appoint any Elector at all
and further, that the Legislature Of Yer
mont has no authority to provide for the APP
pointment of an Elec:or. in the place Of the
disqualified postmaster. This in face Of the
clear provision Of the United States COnsti-
tuition
SEC. 1873, Each State may, by law, pro-
vide for the filling of any vacancies which
NAV occur in its college of electors when
such college meets to give its electoral
vote :"
The Sun should 90 one step further, and
hold, a. it could do just as sensibly, that u
choice of one disqualified person, in one
State. disqualifes ali the electors chosen by