The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1876-12-28

the resignation of Oscar Arroyo, in
? December, 1874. The vacancy the
, board repeatedly refused to fill, al.
, though they were repeatedly urged to
comply with the mandate of the law,
and elect one Democrat. The same
!, members constituted the Returning
, Board in 1874. and the same vacancy
existed. and there was the same refu-
sal to fill it.
A committee of the House of Repre-
sentatives composed of Messrs Hoar,
Wheeler, Fry, Foster, Phelps, Marsh all
and Potter, examined carefully the
! whole proceedings of the board with
: reference to the election of 1874, and
said "We are constrained to declare
that the action of the Returning Board
on the whole, was arbitrary, unjust
aud in our opinion illegal"
And in speaking of this vacancy on
the board, and of the refusal of the
board to fill it, they said further,
"Your committee think the law as to
the constitution of the board, was not
complied with"
/ Here, then, is the authority of Re.
publican committee of Congress COM
posed Of 81 Nh Republicans as Hoar,
Wheeler, fey, Forts and PheIps, for
statement that this board is not legally
constituted. No act of an illegally
constituted board can be legal.
! But further, even if the Returning
Board had Jurisdiction of the subject,
and if it had been legally constituted,
yet their action in throwing out these
votes, would still have been absolute
ly void under the law itself and the
indisputable facts of this case,
The law calling into existence this
Returning Beard and defining its
powers is perfectly plain and easily
understood.
Under it, the board are bound to
count and declare the votes actually
cast, except in the cases and under the
circumstances specifically set out in
the law itself.
The law deyolves the very delicate
and dangerous power of throwing out
votes upon the board, but it is careful
to absolutely prohibit it's exercise, ex-
cept in cases clearly pointed out in the
| law. h
Before the board can get any right
to consider the question of throwing
out votes, certain things must have oc.
Cured, which are clearly set out in the
law itself. Unless they do in fact oc-
| cur, the board has absolutely no juris-
diction to throw out votes; and any
pretended action, not based ON such
prerequisite .iurisdictional facts, is as
absolutely void as iftaksn by any four
people within the whole limit of the
United States,
The law plainly commands tho prop.
er commissioners aud supervisors of
election to make a full return, within
a certain specified time, of the result
of an election. and to deposit il in the
post office Of their own parish, ad.
dressed to the Returning Board.
In case it is claimed that any of the
causes enumerated for throwing out
votes exist, these sesupervisors aud com.
missioners must state in detail all such
facts as support such claim, and must
do it on the spot and within the time
named, and must attach it to the re.
turns themselves, and must also pro-
cure corrOborating statements of three
witnesses to be also made out within
such time and also attached to the re-
turns. The acts complained of must
also have occurred within the time
specified in the law.
Every provision OF the law prescrib-
ing every step in the process is man
datory and definite, and, unless COM
piled with, the law does not confer
Jurisdiction upon any human being to
pess on the question of throwing out
votes.
The reason is obvious. If there is
really any intimidation or violence on
a particular occasion, of course the
party charged with supervision is
aware of it then, and is not in better
position to know about it weeks after
ward-after he is acquainted with the
result of the election in the whole
the necessities of q party
and has an opportunity to fit his case
to its exigencies. The only time to
take honest acion is when the law di-
rects. 1t covers all conceivable hon.
est purposes, for which such law can
be desired. A disregard of its pro-
visions, can only mean nationally, that
an after thought has suggested a dis.
honest use to put the machinery to.
AS matter of fact, in no single in
stance have these prerequisite juris-
1ictional steps been taken. aud the
is inevitable, that in no.
single instance, did the Board have
my jurisdiction or discretionary pow
,r to throw out a single vote. This is
lot question of an abuse of discre-
iondry power. 1t is much simpler.
It is mere naked act of usurpation.
md those four men sitting in New
Orleans had no more power under any
conceivable Interpretation of the laws
IF Louisiana, to throw out vote, than
my four mere intrudcrs-the condi-
ions precedent to the vesting of such
power had none of them been com.
,lied with.
The congressional committee before
alluded to, when referring to similar
,cts of the board in 1874, based on
the same pretended grounds,
said: Upon this statute we are aH
,lcarly of opinion that the Returning
Board has no right to do anything ex-
eept TO canvass and compile the returns
" Nhich were law fully made 10 them hx