Lyon County times. [volume] (Silver City, Nev.) 1874-1907, 1876-12-11
NOT EXACTLY PARALLEL.

tnat tuefe II scaiVefs ~ ueai W
parallel Of principle in the Oregon
Electoral trouble and that Of the
doubtful Southern States as they may
suppose or as they may wish to have
appear. They charge the Repnbli-
cars with securing Electoral votes in
certain States by fraudulent means,
setting up the plea that the decisions
ot the Returning Boards in those
States are beyond appeal, while when
themselves attelE pied bit of coup
in Oregon the Republicans were I'M
sparine in the use of terms of con-
demnation. They say, through their
chief organ in this vicinity;
In their own estimation, they THE
Republicans may produce results by
frauds and violence, and those re-
suits, having been declared. must
stand, there being no authority in ex-
istence To go behind formulated and
promulgated returns; but where =
declaration of Democratic victory
is assailsd With the merest suspicion
of irregularity, j, is perfectly proper
to set it aside.
The victory having the merest sus'
picion of irregplarity referred 70 Is
that claimed in Oregon, an admitted
Republican State. But there Is no
parsllel. rs remarked above, between
the principle involved in setting the
vote Of the certified Electors in THAI
State aside and going behind the GER
titled returns of the Returning Boards
OF the Southern States. The Demo
Gratis will adhere TO the belief that
there is. and will hope therefore to
have n way opened to an endless
progress of Investigations ante dating
the convenlug of the Returning
Boards altogether. But this will not
stand, because
/. The Returning Boards u the
Southern States in question were
created as means Of checking frauds
in elections by exercising Judicial
powers over the returns, excluding
all votes deposited frsudulently. 1t
WAS hoped by this means not only to
correct frauds after they had occur
red. but 70 preven, them from occur
ring by holding the power to revise
over reckless voters. The object of
the Boards would never have been
reached uniess they we're granted
Judicial powers, which they were,
whether clearly expressed or not. A
body exercising those powers must
be given some range for the of
use OF reason, or j, is mere puppei,
thing. When i; has exercised its
reason and rendered its Judgment
there Is no revising ar setting aside
but by higher tribunal, which in the
cases under review does net exist.
:. Governor Growers office In
granting certificates of election to the
the Electors was no, judicial. As to
whether Watts or Crouin should have
certificate involved legal points tina;
had been va1ousiy decided. The
Governor was not sitting in ludgmen,
on them, and his action is subject to
revision. II would be singular case
if q Governor, proceeding in purely
ministerial capacity, without author.
ity Recognized by anyone 10 with
hold . certificate from an Elector
duly elected, in whose election &c
question had arisen, could decide
finally case that Supreme Court.
had differed on.
II tia granting Of the eertiacst,
by the Governor TO Cronin was fna
ss to his legal election, why woulc
not the granting of election certifi
Gates by Boards of Supervisors IL
tinal aisoi The principle is the same
Recently in San Joaquin county, Cal
ifornia. the Supervisors granted 1
certificate Of election to q superin
tendsnt Of schools, who WAS . Fedora
gauger. The opposing candidate tool
the case into the courts and the Su
premc Court held that neither one o
them was righfully elected. and tina
the Office was therefore vacant. l
the Governor of Oregon capable q
deciding . question like this beyon.
appeal or must the courts or Con
gress dscadel
There is no semblance between tn
difficulties in question. One may b
revised; the nther can not.