Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1876-03-10
From the Toledo Blado.)
ADANG EROUS PRECEDENT.

The decision oil the supreme court Oh
Ohio in the case OF Madison G.. Wetmore
u. Andrew D. Stewart, Clerk of the Court
Of Common Pleas OF Wood county, in
wolves principle OF such vital importance
to every elector OF the State that it de.
mands more than passing notice.
Let us look at the facts. At the cleo
ton in Wood county last fall, the people
were called upon to vote on the question Of
removing their county seat from Bowling
Green to Perrysburg. As is usual in such
cases, great excitement prevailed, and
about double the usual number of votes
were polled. The County Clerk was an
active friend OF Bowling Green. When the
el, ction returns were sent to the Clerk, in
stead OF calling in one Justice of the Peace
friendly to each OF the contendng parties
to the county seat contest, he selected two
of the most extreme friends of Bowling
Green. On opening and counting the votes
of the several townships of the county,
this canvassing board decided that they
would not count the vote of Perrysbure
township. 1t is conceded that the returns
from that township were in proper form,
and no exception is taken to them except
that the vote did not meet the appreciation
OF the Clerk and the two Justices who as
| sisted him in the canvass of the votes.
Assuming authority 10 accept or reject
votes at will, this canvassing board threw
aside the vote of Pcrrysburg township
much the largest township in the county
| footed up the returns for the other eighteen
| townships, and gave certificates of election
to the men receiving the largest number OF
votes in the townships exclusive of Perrys-
burg. The Clerk made returns of this
| partial vote of the county to the Senatorial
| District and to the State the same as though
he was making a full return of the vote oil
the county.
Madison g. Wetmore was candidate
for Infrmary Director. In the eighteen
townships counted by the Clerk, Mr.. vs.
opponent received a majority OF the votes
but by counting the votes of Perrysburg
| township, Mr.. w. was elected by quite a
handsome majority. The office Of fnfirm.
| ary Director was created subsequent to the
enactment Of the law providing for the con.
test of elections, and It was believed that
| no contest could be made. At all events
| it was not believed that the man having q
| majority OF the votes returned should be
compelled to contest the election because
Of the refusal OF the Clerk to perform Il
| plain duty under his oath OF office. The
proper remedy was supposed to lie in q
mandamus from the Supreme Court com.
| polling the Clerk to perform his otlicia
! duty by recording the full vote of the
county.
Silt was brought in the Supreme Court tc
| secure such an order, or command, to the
! Clerk. and some weeks since the case was
| argued By able counsel. On Tuesday last
the Court rendered decision upon the
notion, holding that Mr.. Wttmore must
GEEK his remedy by contest, under the stat.
ute governing contests in other cases.
This decision must be accepted ns n H.
cense to County Clerks from the Supreme
Court, to count only such votes as may
meet their appreciation, and To issue certifi
Gates of election upon returns from only
one township in county, throwing ont all
ut the other townships, and compelling can,
| didates, duly elected, to commence proceed
| ings which may be easily delayed until the
| expiration OF the term of Office for which
| the contestants was elected That is Ger
tainly most dangerous precedent. If tho
! County Clerk can thus disfranchise one
township, why may he not disfranchisC
half dozen or more? II he may disfran
| chiSe hall dozen or more, why not all
And II the Supreme Court will permit hin
to diStranchise one township, and recog-
\ nze his right to do so, how could il com
pei him TO record the vote of any tOwnahip ~
In brief, if the Supreme Court will no
compel the County Clerk to perform tho
duties of his office in canvassing and re
corling the legally returned votes of tn,
county, are not the electors at the mercy o
the Clerk? May he not elect any of tn,
candidates, and defeat any of them, a
pleasure, where one township may be founC
which will give majority for his favorite
Should Republican county have Dem
ocratic Clerk, under this ruling Of the Su
preme Court, cOuid Republican receive
certificate OF electiOn3 And with Dem
ocratic Court, and the means OF delay a
command, would a contest avail anything
We cannot but regard the action of tn
Supreme Court in this case as extremel,
dangerous in its tendency. 1t is one of tn
most sacred duties OF the Courts to protec
citizens in the exercise OF their rights q
electors. Any departure from this princi
pie is fraught with danger and must resul
in violence. People will not submit +
have their most cherished rights thus sc
aside by corrupt partisahs and officers wiz
disregard their plainest sworn duties W
regret exceedingly that the Supreme Cour
should Tor a moment assume position
which bears the semblanee of sanctionin
the violation of law by n sworn officer q
the people, and especially in a matter q
such vital importance as tfut OF tamperin
with the election returns by reporting a
the vote of a county only the returns fror
a portion of the townships thereof. II
a precedent most dangerous in its chnraC
ter, and a ruling which cannot adorn eve
the Ohio Reports.
A Pennsylvania man named his frs
three sons America, United States an