Litchfield enquirer., 1877-02-15
The Florida Count.

4AACS dS AOl4OWDs
 Frst-The Commissson, exercising the powers of both houses under the law. and having examined all the certificates and papers referred to them. find that they have no authority to hear evidence aLiurdi, or, in other words, to hear evi- dence outside of the certificate of the Governor of the State of Florida, founded upon the determination of the CanYass- ing Board of the State. as to its vote. tSecOnd-The Commission could not consider as evidence any act of the Legis-' lature or courts in determining whom the State had appointed as Electors after the day the said Electors gave their votes. Third-In regard to the ineligibility of F, c. Humphreys, there was not shffi- cient proof that he held office on the 7th l of November.
 To understand this decision it is nec- essary to know something of the usual ] legal processes in case of contested elec- tions, and for the benefit of such of our readers as are unfamiliar with such pre- ceedings we offer brief explanation.
 The actions usually brought to try election titles in our law courts are the Mandamus and the Quo Warranto. A Mandamus lies to compel canvassing boards, having only ministerial powers l (whose duties are confined to the mere counting of the votes and giving certifi- cates) to perform that duty according to law. The case of Drew vs. Stearns in the Florida Supreme Court is an instance. in point. The Canvassing Board. exer- cising judicial powers" which they claim ed were given them by statute, rejected the returns from several counties and de- 1 clared Stearns elected. On Mandamus brought by Drew, the Supreme Court de- cided that the canvassing board had no such judicial powers as they claimed; and that their duty was to declare the vote cast, in accordance with the face of the returns. The board complied with this order, made new count, and gave Drew the certificate on which he was installed as governor. Mandamus against returning boards is, however, only a preliminary suit. After officers are installed by their action, though illegally, the power of those boards over the matter is at an end; nor is there trial of the real merits of an election in such proceeding. It simply compels ministerial officers to give the required certificates of election in accord ance with the face of the returns. A Quo Warranto determines the real title to the office. It goes behind the face of the re- turns, throws out fraudulent or improper | votes, corrects all mis-counts, and makes final decision of the election contest. Hence it may happen that on Mandamus to canvassing officers, one candidate may he given the present possession of an office; and afterwards, on Quo Warranto, be sjected therefrom and the final deci- sion rendered in favor of his opponent.
 The dealings of legislative bodies with their contested elections are of similar character. The count of a canvassing board entities member to his seat. In case of contest the. legislative body to which he is certified ascertains the facts by means of committee, and in the ex- ercise of powers similar to those of the Quo Warranto, makes final disposition of the case. In short there are two grades of examination known to the courts, and legislative bodies !: first. the prelimina= immediate possession of the office to tue candidate entitled thereto on the face of the returns; second, the careful thorough trial by Quo Warranto or legislative com, mittee which ascertains which candidate is really elected. The one in possession by the first proceeding is an officer de fact0; the one found entitled on the final examination is the officer de .jure;; and the official acts of the, former, before final decision against him, are always held valid. Hence proceedings by Quo War ranto, to be of any effect, must reach 8 decision before the term of office contest. ed has expired.
 An understanding of these legal ac. tlons is necessary to any just comprehen- sion of the questions decided by the Con- mission in the Florida case. The facts are these: Tue Returning Board, acting on mistaken view regarding their powers, threw out certain county returns. That this action was mistake, and not fraud, IS conclusively shown by the fact that the Democratic Attorney General acted with the rest in exercising these judicial powers. The Hayes College of electors received the certificate and cast the vote of the State for Hayes. The Tilden College also met and forwarded their vote with only the Attorney Generals certificate, which was of itself plainly insufficient. Then came the decision. of the Supreme Court in the Drew case, and the recount of the Governors vote. At the same time, the Republican members of the board made a recount of the electoral vote, which by manifest fraud gave small majority to the Hayes electors. It was of this sec ond count of the electoral vote that the Jacksonville Union. a Republican journal owned largely by ex-Governor Stearns, re- marked in the following decisive terms: ''The manner in which the Board of State Canvassers have performed their work in this second canvass of the vote of the State of Florida will prove very un- satisfactory to majority of the thinking people of this State and to the country at large. It is in some degree self-stulti- fication and an implied confession of pre- vlous ignorance or wrong. In the origi- nal canvass two returns from Baker coun- ty were presented to the board, one of them giving a democratic majority and the other one giving republican ma iority. The one showing a majority for the democratic ticket, with scarcely any discussion. was admitted to be legal in all its aspects. and the votes borne upon 1t were canvassed and allowed. Now, in the second canvass, the vote of Baker county. rejected at the first count as not being the true return, Is accepted, and the face of all the returns is made to show majority for the Hayes electors. As was before said. this will satisfy no- body worth satisfying. If Marcellus l.. Stearns was fairly and honestly defeated