The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1876-10-27
For Congrt ssman, Eighth District,
HON. THAD. G. POUND,
of Chippewa Falls.
For State Senator oath Senate District,
SAM s. FIFIELD, of Ashland
THAD C. POUND OR G. W. CATE.
Is George W. Cate the Man Who
Ought to Represent People WI o
Have Rights at the Ballot Box.

Is George W. Cate the Man Who
Ought to Represent People Wiz
Have Rights at the Ballot Box.
From the Polk County Press.
When George w. Cate, the
Democratic candidate for Congress,
in this district, was, two years ago
a candidate against Doctor McDill
he was defeated in the whole dis.
trict by thirty-eight majority. The
county board of canvassers OF
Wood county had upon it one
Baker, who was running for coun-
ty office. Returns from the first
ward of the city of Grand Rapids,
and of the town of Lincoln in that
county, were unaccompanied by
some paper, such as the poll list or
oath Of the inspector of clerks.
These could have been sent for un-
der the law, by the board in session
at Grand Rapids, the county seat.
To send for them, or to disregard
this little inforinality in the returns,
would have defeated Baker, this
model member of the county board
of canvassers. To reject them
would cleo: him and would elect
George w. Cate By teoo majority.
So, these returi were rejected and
this honest county canvasser re-
tanned the office he already held,
and for which he was again running
And George w. Cate took his seat
in Congress with the certificate in
his pocket resulting from this fraud
upon the rights Of the people and
the sacredness Of their ballot box.
The courts had no jurisdiction over
Geo. w. Gates case, Congress
having repeatedly declared that
Congress and Congress only is to
settle the matter Of the admission
or non-admission of its own mem
bers, and that neither the State or
United States courts can interfere
with that question. But this Wood
county canvasser and self elected
county officer could not thus escape
the result of has proceedings.
The Supreme Court of this State
having to deal originally with such
wrongs, was appealed to by out.
ragged electors, and rendered a
Judgment of custer against Baker
In delivering their opinion as to his
transactions, and those of his indie
cent associates on the board, it used
the following languages:
There is nothing in the statement of thi:
board of canvassers showing or tending te
show. neither was it claimed on the argu
ment of the demurrer, that any effort was
made to procure corrected returns from the
rejected town or ward. On the contrary
the silence of their statement on that subject
the suppression of the nature of the al egeC
defects IN such returns for which they were
rejected and the fact that it does not appeal
that this board avaied itself of the pow el
given by law to adjourn for the purpose O
procuring corrected returns, leave upon ouI
mind most painful impression that The
G, unity canvassers utterly neglected theil
duty in this respect, and illegally and wan
tonly disfI anchised all the voters who voted
at such election in the rejected town anG
ward If they did so, they committed ,
most serious offtnse; an offense which strike!
at the very foundations of our system of gov
eminent, and which cannot be too severely
censured Thus it was, that we felt justified
in saying. during the argument of the demur
rer, that he who by fraud or by wiful dis
srSuIu Uf nio euv.. au.y, ti~ 60. to dry viii u
the people as expressed by their votes, com
mits political crime next to treason anc
nearly akin to it and that this court will
never fail, on any proper occasion, to char ae
terize such an offense in fitting terms. The
shameful truth, suggested in that case, i.
apparent in this Then we could only cen
sure, now we can punish. Section Is o.
chapter l69 revised statutes. under which
this proceeding is taken, contains the ancien,
and salutary power of imposing a fine on the
usurping officer, in such cases to the extent
of $4,000 Such statute, in such cases as
this, should not be dead letter IF any de-
PENDANT in any case of quo loarrdnto can earn
such fine, this defendant has earned it IL
this. 1t is our duty, now about to be full
filed, to GUST him from an office which he
has usurped for one-third of the official term,
by wilful malfeasance in Office, corrupt in
fact as in law. And we should feel this
court to be, in some sort, his particeas crimi.
mis-, if in doing so, we should refuse to exer-
else the power to punish him with which the
law entIusts u.s. Our only doubt on this
point has been the proper amount of the Il e
TO be imposed. This is, so far as We are ad-
vised the first instance of a fine imposed
under the statute. And we have been led TO
think that fine moderate in amount, will be
sufficient for the punishment of this defend
ant, and for example in such cases. If the
example should prove insufficient, the prece-
dent will not stand in the way of heavier
fines in future cases of the kind. The same
Judgment will therefore go in the case of
Baker as In the case of Kroner, with the ad.