Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1877-01-17

: the board are stated TO be what is uni
: versally true, but primd tdcie proof q
F. the right TO hold the Office until sc
5 aside after a contest according 10 ldu
. Here are all the duties, powers, an'
Z. sanctions of authority ordinarily gvel
r to such officials, and here too is ex
: pressed and reserved the right of th,
! law TO adjuhicate upon their finding.
But when we take up section I,
, learn what powers are given there W,
, find them TO be anomalous, new il
character, and foreign TO our system
, A sworn statement is TO be filed. b,
whom ? By the voter to be disiran
chised2 BY thecandidate whose right
are TO be passed upon By neither
but by the election officials. The re
turning board are TO investigate The
statements Of intimidations, DC, and Il
from The euidence Of such statement Hel
shall be convinced that there was moi
such intimidation, &c, as TO materially
change tho result Of the election, then
and not otherwise, they shall canvass
and compile the votes named in the
statement. Riot, bloodshed, and murder
may surround the election polls, peace
iul citizens may be driven from them
and the will Of the majority be defeat.
cd by violence, il the statement Of the
election officials fails to disclose it, OF
the board are not convinced by what
il contains that such was the fact, the
votes are to be counted. True, the pro
viso 10 the section with great show Of
fairness, but in order more efiectually
TO foreclosc investigation, provides that
a candidate may have hearing before
the board. In that hearing the only
instruments of evidence are the state.
ments of the election officers. Such a
hearing is mockery of justice.
These provisions, as ] read them,
give 10 the board the power 10 convince
every one that the election was pure
and free and that nothing occurred 10
materially change the result. IT, how
ever the board is not satisfied that this
was the case, then they shall examine
further testimony and may send for
persons and papers Ifthey shall then
be convinced that intimidation, &C., did
occur and materially interfere with the
freedom of the election or prevent suffi.
cient electors from registering and
voting to materially change the result,
then the vote shall not be canvassed,
hut shall be excluded from the returns.
The statements Of the election officers,
il will be seen, are still the substantial
accusations against the poll, but other
testimony may be examined. The
board are thus vested with the right
to hear the charge, (the statements Of
the election oflicers,) to examine wit
nesses, TO send for persons aud papers,
TO be conriRced that there was intimida-
ton, TO judge of its materiality both as
to interfering with the freedom and ms
to changing the result, and upon such
judging TO exclude the poll 1t must
be admitted that these are judicial pow
ers. They vest the tribunal with
power to hear something, TO Judge after
hearing, and to execute their judgment.
Is it court or is it returning board ?
What do those who sustain its author
ity claim ii TO be T.? On page l75, of
Document No 2, sent 10 the Senate by
the President, find Judge l.. ]. Camp
hell nf the Fonrth ii-s-.~. -----., A.
Orleans, in his letter TO Mr. Garfield,
speaks of il thus
II will be seen that these Eve returning officers
are neither canvassing bosrd nor a returning
board and, therefore, there is 10 analogy between
their powers and functions aud those of canvass
ing boards Of other States. These Eve officers
are the returning officers Of the State Tor all eec.
tivDs. There are no returns, and can be none, Of
any election, but The returns which these officers
make In the eve Of the Law they are present at
each poll. - II Is the returns Of these
i've officers, and these alone, which, under the
law, constitute the prisa Jacs evidence Of the re-
suit Of the election. Their power to inquire into
and determine the result OF violence ana ntimida.
tion where alleged is not the power Of counting
out or counting in votes, but the power to decide
whether alleged votes are votes or not It is the
power TO examine into cases where an election has
already been nulihed BY acts OF violence, aud 80
forth, and II the nulliiy is proved according to
law, TO ascertain and declare that nuity.
The Senator from Ohio Mr.. Sher-
mani and those who unite with him, in
their report in the same document,
page 5, speak Of il in this language
Not only 10 the action Of this board independ-
eut Of the State or national laws other than those
Of Louisiana, but It's determination Of the votes
cast aud candidates elected is final and substan-
italy conclusive, as appears from a decision Of
| the Supreme Court Of that State, reported In the
Il nh x.l, AZ ho Iutt An na
ports where the court, page 2ts, say " No stat
ute con.erring upon the courts the power to try
eases Of contested elections title to Office author
| izcs them 10 revise the action OF the returning
board. II we were TO assnme that PREF ogative
We should have TO 20 still further, aud revise the
rctnrns o. the supervisors Of elections, examine
the right Of voters to vote, and, in short, the
courts would become in regard to such cases mere
officers for counting, compiling, aud reporting
election returns. The Legislature has seen prop
er to lodge the power to decide who has or has
not been elected 10 the returning board.
at might have conferred that power on the
courts, but Il did not. Whether the law be good
or bad, 1t Is our duty to obey It's provisions, and
not to lcgislaie."
Great reliance is placed upon this
decision of the Supreme Court. do
not regard it as adding TO the value OF
the powers granted nor giving moral
strength to the power assumed. 1t
was delivered by divided court. The
Judges asserting to the doctrine were
Chief Justice Ludcling, Justice Talia-
ierro, and others.
OF the character Of at least the head
Of this court, we may judge by what
Mr. Justice Strong, OF the Supreme
Court Of the United States, says, in the
opinion of that court in the ease OF
jackson Us. Ludellng, in 2l Wnllace's
Reports. Al page 62i, aiier describing
combination OF which Mr.. Ludcling
was an active member, he says
Were there nothing more in this case than u
narrated by the briei history thus given, which .
uucvntradicted, II would be- diibcui To character
ile the transHc ction ne anything less Than great
wrong prrrctraied by the agency ofieyot Jpems.
Again, at pages 62S and G29, after
discussing the agreement entered into
between Ludcling, Tor himself and
friends, and J.N. Horne, Judge Strong
says
il Ia impossible to characterize this agreement
! as ANYTHING else than fraudulent Ifs obvious
purpose was to remove eompetitisns Of the sale |,
was aueraut breach Of trust on the part OF Horne
aud Il vas a (,ond IL Lndeting with knowledge
Of the trust. Horne had und-raken TO persuade
him 10 violate his instructions aud sacrifice the
interests of bis constituents.
And again, at page 63l, after stating
tho combination 10 defeat u sale for
s550,U0O in order that they might buy
the property for s5O,O0O, Judge Strong
says
Il 10 impossible TO sustain such transaction
Throughout II was grcssy iuequitable. Lodeing
II 10 true, was not not a director, bat be was
leading member Of the combination and its ehisl
agent 10 carry vu, iu plans. lie nss It's pur.
poses. lie knew It, illegalily. lie h,J nego,s
led the surrender Of Horne with full knuwledge o
ll....s. h....h al ftusf