The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1876-12-21

trAry To the prOhlbltOn COhlalheu III 'n0 'VNo
section OF the secuud article OF the Consuluuon'
and II any such votes were given what onsnl 70
done with them, and whether any and what pro
vision ought " be made for securing iailhiul oo'
ser,ance I'm the future of that section OF the Ooi'
sntulion" Mr., Clays amendment was adop'eu,
and the members of the joint committee 70 couh'
the votes for PRESIDENT and Vice President ana W
discharge the duties required by MT Gays
amendment on the part of The Senate were reilA
Gmndy. OF Tennessee; Henry Clay, Of Kentucky,
aud siIas Wright. of New York. On the part OF
the House. Francis Thomas, UfMarylandi Church
an q CambrelinR, of New York; John Reed, OF
Massachusetts; Henry W, Connor, of North caro-
lima, and Francis s. Lyon OF Alabama. This com
mittee reported unanimously 10 the house as iol'
lows. "Tha committee are of opinion that the
second section Of the second article OF lhe Con
sttution, which declares that no Senator or hep'
resentative, or pesOus holding ONCE OF uusI 0,
profit under the United states shall be appolheu
an Eeetor' ought to be carried In It's whole spirit
into rigid execution, in order TO prevent the oi'
GERS of the General Government from bringing
tbpir official power to influence the elections Oh
President and Vice President Of the United STATES
This nroysion of the Constitution, 1t is believed
excludes and dlsqualifes leputy Poslmasteh
from the appointment Of Electors, and the dls'
qualification relates TO the time Of appointment
and that a resignation Of the ofice OF Deputy
Postmaster after his appointment as Elector woul
moi entitle him to vote as Eector under the Con-
stitution." In the debate In the House. MT flai'
els Thomas said that 1.-The committee came unanl
mousy to the conclusion that they (the fos'niaS'
ters I'm question: were not eligible at thetme tney
were elected, and therefore the whole proceeding
WAS yitiated db initiO" In the senate MI urunuy
stated that in some instances not more thah iour
or five electors have been chosen IN some Vi tne
States who are officers of the general Government
(Deputy Postmasters), and that such votes are III
tho oninion of the committee not in conformity
with the Constitution. But at the same ume lhe
faw votes thus given will not vary the result OF the
election as it was not COZ templated by any one
that the appointment of one ineligible Eee'or
would viliate the vote of the State see uae "
seatons register of debates in Congress, vol 10
mart pages 7 and 69S and part 2 page 1883
In the case of SearCy VS.. Grow, Id California ke'
ports. page llS the opinion was pronounced Dy
Justice Baldwin, Justice Cope, and Chiel Justice
Fields, now of the Supreme Court oil Ihe ohlteu
States concurring, 1t was contest ior lhe oiice
of Sheriff of SiskiyOu County. Grow hau peeil
returned as elected to that office. AT the uihe ol
tho election he was Postmaster III the town Oh
Yreka. the compensation of which exceeded
five hundred liars per annum. Inc
Court below found for searcy, and Grow appeal
ed The Constitution of California provides thal
mo person holding any luz ralive office under the
limited States or in their power shall be eligible to
any civil Office of profit under this State, provided
N. i,,t tbo Mil n Whit N tlpre is at
attached no annual salary or local officers ana
rostmasters WI ose compensation does not eXceeu
five hundred dollars per annum, shall not be
deemed lucrative" Grow was Postmaster al the
time of election but had res gned at the time oi
his qualification The Supreme Court uhahi
mousy confirmed The judgment OF the Court De-
low. ,,,,
In the opinion Justice Baldwin says page l2l):
1.-THE people in this case were clothed Win lhis
power of choice Their selection OF candida'e
gave him all the claim to the Office when ne mas
His title to the Office comes from their designation
of him as Sheriff. But they could not designate
or choose man not eligible-that is, not capable
of being selected. They might select any man
they chose, subject only to this excephon-that
the man they selected was capable Of taking what
thew had the power to give. We do not see now
the fact that he became capable of taking olhce
after tbey had exercised their power can avail the
anpointment. II he was not eligible at the time
the votes were cast for him, the election ialleu'
We do not see how il can be assumed that by the
act of the candidate the votes which, when cast
were Intellectual because not given for qual itied
candidate became effeciual to elect him TO once
The same principle has been held by the Supreme
Court of the State of Oregon. In the case OF NC
Wnirter vs. Brainard rs Oregon Repp 42b'I tne
Supreme Court of Oregon decided that the moue
of canvassing the vote and the proclamation OF
the Governor are substantially only modes OF as
certaining and publishing the result OF the vote
As the vote of the people in this case was cast
upon the 7th of November the result OF the vote
depends necessarily upon the eligibility to ap'
nointment as It then existed. 1t thus appears that
Watts was, within the inhibition of the Constitu
ton. incapable of being appointed an Elector'"
and that the defect was not cured by his supse-
ouent resignation of his office as Postmaster
The duties of the Governor OF oregon IN the
matter of the count are prescribed by the thlrd
section of the forty-fourth chapter ofthe compila'
ton of general laws of Oregon Oregon General
laws. page $40: 1.-The votes for the Electors shall
he given. received, returned and canvassed as the
same are giyen returned and canvassed for mem
hers of Congress. The Secretary of State shall
nrepare two lists of the names of the Electors
elected and afx the seal of the State to the same.
Such lists shall be signed by the Governor and
Secretary, and by the latter delivered to the Col
lepe of Electors, at the hour of their meeting on
such first Wednesday of December" These are
the lists that were given by Governor Grover and
the secretary of State to the Elector Crenin. The
method Of returning and eanvassing the votes ior
member of Congress is prescribed by Section 81,
mage 7O6 of the same compilation, which requires
County Clerks TO make copies Of the abstracts OF
votes in their counties, and transmit them by mail
10 the Secretary of State at the seat of Government
whose duty II is made, fin the presence OF the
Governor to proceed within thirty days after the
election. and sooner if the returns be all receiv-
cd 10 canvass The vOtes given for Secretary and
Treasurer of State, Justices of the Supreme Court,
member of Congress and District Attorneys ana the
Governor shall granta certificate of election to the
nerson having the highest number of votes for
either of such offices, and shall issue proclama'
ton declaring the election of such person"
Does the power to CdRuIss the vote include the
mower to reject votes cast in contravention OF the
Constitution of the United States, as, for instance
for Postmaster for Elector? To canvass means
tWebster) ITO examine returns of votes, to search
or scrutinIze to canvass votes for Senator'S" A
canvass is, as per the same authority. "examina'
ton, close inspection to know the state Of as a
canvass of votes" To canvass (Wooster) means
"ro tift, TO examine, to scrutnize." A canvass by
the same authority, is ian examination or sitting
AZ of the opinion of others previous to an elec
tion' The word comes from the old French word
canaabdsser, ito beat or shake. to examine" and
necessarily involves discussion, as is shown by the
other meanings of the word, az to canvass poll
oy. TO canvass district for votes. If in the State
Of Louisiana, in which by Article 7S of the Con
slitution 1t is provided that "the judicial power
shall be vested in Supreme Court In District
Courts In Parish Courts, in Just es Of the Peace.
| and in Article o. that mo judicial power, excep
as committing magistrates in criminal cases shall
be conferred on any officers other than those men
toned in this title, being the same utlewhich in
| ch1des also Article 49, and in which members Of
Returning Boards are not mendoned-if In Louis
lana, In which the Supreme Court has decided
that the members OF the Returning Boards are
officers. (state eE rel Attorney General VS., Whar
ton. Is Louisiana Annual, page 2) 1t be true, al
stated in the letter Of John sherman and otheri
AwaA