, 1876-11-18

Of tho order, except the presumption Which al.
Ways attached that the officer did his duty. Tho
law never intended that the result should 'e tie-
tGr,nncd ly the tally-shrcts. They were entirely
spoke next. Tic question pendIng was IN ono
rcslcct nm important one. Allusion lad tccn
mhie to the cSaspeFated state Of public sentl.
Justly, too: IL was octr.slonct by wlati lily n
growing dIstrast In tho community as t0
whether voters were hcInS fairly dcalt With by
Canvasstug Boards s,-whuil1cr thc parties whanl
out OF counted IT,. There was no moral
necn eiected in co,k County; Ilo asrycd
that the law. was 10 DO adsn'hlstercd,---
and under ,!,c Constitution and the law. md
not outside of them. It was material tllat they
should bc administered 50 fairiy that tho Boari
should not By subjueicd cvcn y slc suspicion Of
aetnatei i's; every = memcr % u Tic boa1 @ iiany %
Of the returns were so utterly defective In
pcremptory auL jursdictional matters that the
board iIai no power or right 10 vonnt them,
substantially sufficient, AMI defective merely In
some directory matters, thcv should be tO,lnied.
Ho tliet' discussed the law with reference To tho
construcflOn ot statutes, contcndihg TINT the re-
turus were substantially sufficient, and a.llsn.
tGo ccrtlficato contrnlici-that It wns liz
thing, and the Board had no right to CORRECT the
cert!a.atc by tho iailys!cct, or to bo guided by
strated tint the provision for kcsnIn,t taiiv.
sheets and returning uuu III them wa lnerrlv
DIRECTORY, introincctl rs a ,nntter Of car.
tson. It not being An ssscnttll ant! jaris-
cited II yase ii tho l0tl, Missouri to show that
tho return wis to eontrol, saying that no authort-
" could be produced 10 support the rro,,usi-
ton tint the taly-sl,cet was t. be tue guide,
Tho raao uf Deardstown Va Virginia III tho
10th Illinois was aiso quoted. No Gal.
lots or afILlayts had been returned, vet tic
Supreme Court held thai II was clearly tho duty
Of lhu eanvassers to count on the vertidva.c-
chlscI by my surh tcrhnlcal!ty. in tho case Be-
fore The Board there was q formal result OF Tho
election In ull the precincts In Cook County,
drawn In accordance will tho statute, stNtIi,.
distinctly lilo number Of votes cast, for whom,
In the absence OF d fugitive pcco Of paprr. kent
IN duplicate, con, Gyni,ig which tho Clerk was
iiall!u to make mistake,7 The mon,trolls prop-
s.sne ssYn %is ss nsya wses r. 'sy ny e" no
the county urcalso the Judges Of election lind
faile,i to return ills pieco Of uapcr whlci could
bc altered a IbtuIn. lu tho igiit Of tho authUr-
ttIcs submitted and The law, The duties Of tiie
nssured TINT they wcte actuated by d desire to
discharge tlulr duty in the tp,rlt Of fairness,
and would not hesitate to count III tho men tint
thu people had elected at the polls
rcpltetl "ou bellat Of two Or three obicctors
who would bo Affected" Tie said tho argumcnt
lad proceeded as though tllo Board was court
authorized 10 dlsfranehlso sonebody. II was
murcly u noart of Canyassers, and TIC hotAnr of
civ pra a.e sntcd to tha
yauyassers su,ply declared ccrtnjn rcsrlt frnn,
certain .tata bcfSso them. Not a single case
-
parttcuIar question before thrm. md nnt n an,
Ejo QUO could b. found w!crc n Rct,lrnino i,oarl
was compelled or even permitted to cxorctse tic
right Which the courts exercised #, re-
should lie counted Ior particular rs,nIi.
lntr. Tho Dnnrd had IN dc In Tnn,
something, antl tl.c preliminary INJURY Wa.
"Wcre .hu returns here1'' Every tcxt-writor
That thcy hal tho Fignt to dect. Whether the the
returns were in form. Slr. Root lad pec,,liar
Ideas about tic statute, Ali OF lin ts,t, nsel
seemed to think Il ono saw III 10 follow tllo
sud shat taly.shcet should be kent. Il was ssas
tiicatc. torctIcr viii one Of % the ta,ivists ~,
was to be iiriosud III an envelope. When these
y,s. wsse ,fsssy ,ss y tue g0ara had r.. 5n T. a
wo,,,i be dtstrnncissi by thr.,,sns mt ,he Wv IN.
fcctlve prcrincts. The aggricyoi ,nrties comld
compel by j,tlIciai authority the canyassInr Of
tIlE Suft. The Ht}nrG rttliI mt ntYnrr fEcu,
flat rr,nelr. TIHy wcre r. Ie ,,t,il tv v"Ia tha
statute, aud were to decticd wl1rthnr lin rc.
turns w.rn in fnrn. II lin taliv.iIsts hal m,
brrn RECEIVED. ti,cy lnll mn ,nnrn rit,ht tn c"n.
yass The yutu thn,; had INV ,,thcr tnrrc ~ mn"
Il VIVA thr next hrst cyi,l,:ncc. IN rasc thc hmi.
iul.hUx nn,i bu1Iots were iost. II wns for a
Court to aay whrther II arnm,a hc ~ H..
pcnscl with, Tic tally-Iist, poi]-,ist. md
pull-IUp,i with u certificate. were Whit 1onstt.
tutI n Is r,t,,r,, u ~. aI,n,v ,hnt tMo '',";.,
certificate WAS merely nrin,a fanIc. hn n,,otr1
from i,rIphtlrv;e Lent,Inr CIsra m ElrrttunaH
Wr. Ifmr1 An II In fnox n :. rnsitfnr
Mr. Str,rrv r"funrsnd th.t n that ,roe ,,,,-
eee tn, abs,rty ,f tic arrIment nho,t "1 dia
fr,n,.htsin,, nnvn,Mjv was nn,rra"t r,n .oaa.
cited were before courts which had q right Ia
deiIc HtLr!, matters, The Board ought To mi.
here to t!s Inv, ur they could certify 10 any
thing. Ii tiuy s,sittcI d uart, thcy mirbt
everything r1cypt lilo certificate Itself Would
they e1uyass tbs yule sinlpIy OIL tnatl as to
the decision Of the supreme Court in the quo
wurr.nto case, tlu Court said, after alluutng to
the III It that Ii Was objected tat there wus no
Il-ltsts or tully-shects kent: !. We do nut ron
=