The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-04-05
THE ANDERSON CASE.
IcoNTINUED FROM YESTERDAY

And In the case OF the people VS.. Cook, IA
Harb.. page 900, the rule is stated to be settled
seThat statutes directing the mode Of proceed
Inn l,y public officers are directory, and are
rnt IN regarded as essential to the validity of
Aha proceedings themselves, unless it be 50
6ecleredby the statute" This rule was applied
nv the court In the case cited, wherein great
number of serious irregularities occurred In the
conduct of an election held In New York in
1851, owing to the neglect OF the officers CON
Quoting the election. Many cases are cited
nv the learned court while deciding that case
In support of this rule. some OF which are to
the effect that when an act was to be per-
formed by q public officer within given time,
vet, IL performed after, the official act was
valid.
IN the case of Striker VS.. Kelly( u Hill, 81,
where the act OF 1880 directed the vote OF the
Common Council, upon resolution opening
the streets in the city of New York, to be
taken by yeas and nays, 1t was held that the
statute was directory merely.
Here WAS an act required by the statute to
be done In certain manner, and which II done
In different manner, might cause serious m.
istyu. as the vote by yeas and nays Is about
The fairest Tay "a v o W ean know one anY
thing about the conduct Of proceed
inus when O. vote Is to be taken, and OF
the numerous instances where the vote Is
taken otherwise when great frauds have been
Derpetrated. In another case Q9 Wend., 43),
n was held that the statute requiring inspec-
fors of corporate elections to take an oath is
merely directory, and rs there pds no nullify.-
frg clause, on account OF the omission, that
the election is not invalidated by such omis-
sion to comply with the statute Other cases
were cited to the same effect by the learned
court
9 toos f sSe act is per G but not in the
time or In the precise mode indicated, 1t may
still be sufficient, II that which is done accom-.
n 1lishes the substantial purpose of the statute"
Will not these rules apply to the case OF the
State VS.. Thomas @. Andersonp
The consolidated statement Is state
ment of the vote of the parish of Vernon.
The commissioners returns also give the
result Of the election OF the parish both pur-
The object and purpose OF the returning
officers In using either, when making the final
compilation. was to learn the result Of TIE
election In the parish. Now, could these Off
GERS ascertain this as well from ron the one as
from the other and In compiling from the
supervisors consolidated statement make
d correct return of the election, and thus "ac-
complissh, the substantial purpose of the
stat,lte2"
The consolidated statement is statement of
the result of the election; it is made out by the
highest election offieerin the parish, in obedi-
ence to tho express requirement. OF the law,
and represented by him to be true and cor
rect statement of the votes cast at the cleo
ton In the parish. Is not this document,
made us 1t ia, by this official while acting
under his oath and in the solemn performance
Of his official duties, and pronounced by him
to be correct, reliable for the purpose Of
iui hn of Ia ric h =
Would it not be the only reliable evidence of
u the result in case that one or all of the COM
missioners' returns had been lost, destroyed
or altered; and In such q case would not the
returning officers have been authorized, under
the law, to use this statement in order to
ascertain the result of the election, and
their official returns published therefrom, be
legal and ualid? Why not legal and
were all before the board? The consolidated
statement is but one sheet, the commission
ers several The one, Ii correct, better for the
4 use of the board, being more readily exam
ined. glance at the law will show that the
supervisor Is q much more important officer
than the commissioner. There is but one SUI
pervisor for each parish, and he is appointed
by the Governor; there are several commits
Sioners in each parish and they We're until
1874 appointed by the supervisor Of registra-
Non. He registers the voters. and after the
election Is over he consolidateS the vote and
sends all the papers connected with the cleo
ton necessary for the use of the returning
board to that body. The commissioners, on
+ the other hand, are several in number; their
Office Is subordinate and of short duration !;
they are appointed by inferior officers (rolice
jury now, and their official action is revised
by the supervisor of registration.
Yet the official acts of these are considered
of Importance, while those of the supervisor
are spoken of with contempt.
In comparing the relative Importance OF
the duties of these officers is 1t not reasonable
Al.uA HIN nnf Gfnfn ,,r,l,
5 supervisor are entitled to at least as much
confidence as those of the commissioners, and
that his official acts are as apt to be correct
and his statements as truthful as the others
The question here is as to the correctness and
truthfulness OF the statements of these Off
Gals. and the aptness of the official action,
which Is based on this statement, to be
correct Are those objections substantial
which are made against the pdlue and inn
portance OF the Supervisors statement? In
considering these objections, it is not neces-
sary to discuss in this place the validity OF
the instrument as to whether it is such doc
ument as would be subject of forgery, or
whether it is or not "the instrument the ut
terance Of which as forged is charged upon the
defendant" or whether q public record, or a
different instrument; or as to the Importance
OF the clerks certificate, whether its absence
Is fatal or not The discussion of this matter
will be proper In another place.
1t will be remembered that the position OF
the learned court on this branch of the case
was not that the consolidated statement
was invalid on account of some defect-Ithis
objection is made elsewherel, but that the
official act'o of the returning officers, in can
wasting the vote from this instrument, being
unlawful and invalid, could not effect q fraud
1t Is. therefore, sufficient to show in this
place that the action of the returning officers
In compiling the vote from the CONSOLIDATED
statement" was lawful, and, therefore, could
injure and defraud.
[To BE CONTINUED
The Anderson Decision.
franklin SUM-