The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1878-11-28

necessary TO arrive at tn9 result. out IL was
finally decided to be on the safe side, to take
a recess to 7:30, and go on with the canvass.
Evening Session.
When the board reconvened for the even
ing session quts gccdly number of Repub-
lican leaders were present, interested and
anxious witnesses Of the scene. The board
called to order. Judge Flandrau proceed to
answer the objections advanced by Mr.. Gil
man as Sc. forth in the afternoon proceed
ings. In the first place he said that the
powers Of the board were purely ministerial
With no power to exercise judi
cial prerosatives by review OF
the acts OF precinct boards, but they must
take the returns es they cone before them.
and If found correct upon their face they
must be canvassed. The Object of the CAN
vass was to arrive ct the number of votes
polied. On this point he read authorities.
including decisions Of our own courts, III
defense of bis position.
Judge Flandrau then took up the objec
tons made in their regular order. The first
objection. he said, was to Big Stone as being
an unorganiZed county. and that the return
of votes poiled had been
made to DouCl2S. also az
unorganiZed county. Unorganized counties
are empowered to make returns to counties
to which they are attached for election pur
poses. Big Stone, with Douglas. Grant.
Pope and Stevens. composed the 18th legls-
latlve district, and Douglas being the senior
county IN the district, the returns Of Big
Stone we're made to that county. Mr.. Elan
drau then read from the statutes to show
l,nl l,,lv
lied by the appointment of county com mis-
soners, with authority TO appoint all other
officers included in q regular county
organization to hold their respective offices
until their Successors were elect
ed and qualified Such proceed
Tag constituted organization, and that had
been fully carried out in the case of Douglas
The supreme court decision in the case of
Big Stone. cited by opposing counsel. cover
ed an entirely different point, aud di, not
apply to Douglas.
Referring to the point made by Mr.. Gil
man. that Big Stone was only attached 20
Douglas tor Legislative election purposes, Mr..
FlanGrau said that there no specific pro-
vision IN the State law
governing elections for Congress-
men. ana that Ill consequence such elections
must be governed by the general provisions
OF law applying 10 State and legislative cleo
tons. ana that under such construction Big
:, one was clearly attached to Douglas for
election purposes. The other counties ob
jected to as being unCrganlzad were gov
erusd by the same general principals of law.
! and must be considered by the board in the
same manner.
Judge Flandran then took mp the obiec
tons to the reception of the supplementary
returns from Hennepin county. He argued
that the returns were made by the proper
officers. were properly before the board. and
should be canvassed the same As the other
returns frorn that county. No charge of
fraud had been made. but simply that the
State officers i'll sending ont the blanks had
I failed to provide a space for the vote for
Congressman. by which the local canvassinR
| board had been led into committing an
/ error by emitting that vote. Such ques-
ton carried into court. would be settled
/ instanter. by going behind the returns and
! ascertainInG the true vote and declaring It.
This board cannot GO back OF the returns.
/ bat when it has the evidence OF the proper
officers before it that such a vote WAS legally
cast in compliance with the law, it is its
duty to count such vote, notwithstanding
the fac. Of irregularities.
Taking up the case of Issntl county, be
said objection WIS made that the return WAS
not signed by the proper officers. The
county ooard consists of the auditor and two
justices OF the peace. The return received
Is signed BIZ toe auditor. Justice OF the
peac- and Judge Of probate. According to
the statutes q majority OF the board can act
| in such cases. majority did SO act in this
case. and the fact that tbs judge of probate
signed with that majority, or If sny othoF
person had 80 signed. does mot vitinto tlso ~
or the majority.
in ths case OF K.nsbac county Il = OBJ
jected 20 being unorgenlzsA Aanaoac
Was organized March IL. 1878. IN To sAms
manner Is Douglas. ard must be scnnnoefed
II the same light b. tins board
Objection Is nada t. Lake county Cor the
same reason. II - created in
1860 and rsnanizsd in 1867.
We ind no. ~ -directly organizing
the cpuuty. bat 10 do find laws
rsqugun;ng tbs legal existecce of the coan.y.
~hich d ii that i GENITAL for this board 70
know.
As TO the supplemental returns from Oar
win and Forrest C.v, Heeker county. to
vhich be had rasgle objection. be nov with
drew. believing they aaolli be counted for
ta- r-asoas advanced III favor of the -ec1n-
iion OF tae s1pple.1e2.-l re.u-ns from Hen
nspin.
Deter Tail oocn.v. a waich objection Is
made. was organized March. l.5s. in the
Sans manner IS Douglas. and the argument
z3Tauce-t with -efereace - that county ap-
sls-.i here.
az aA- case OF Polk and ki.-son Counties,
Q j. objected that hittsou il unorcsniz=i.
@nd that is return IS embodied With tha. OF
. Polk. % which i Is 10. attached fo- election
purpos-s- hlissoa Vas formerly Penb:aa
county. He Acknowledged i. was unorvsn-
| ,zed. and said rs return should PROBABLY have
been made TO the senior county in it, leg
ssiatsye district T1is vas an informally.
nothing new. and ought not to vitiate the re-
turn and II It did the objection would not
bold good - to POLK, which vere il ieeai
form. and made by tho proper o.6cas.