Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-11-26
which he had made objection, he now with
drew, believing they should be counted for
the reasons advanced in favor of the recep-
ton of the supplemental returns from Hem

LlOu OI tHo supplemental returns from den-
nepin.
Otter Tail county, to which objection is
made, was organized March, 1858, in the
came manner as Douglas, and the argument
advanced with reference to that county ap-
piled here.
In the case of Polk and Kittson counties,
it is objected that Kittson is unorganized,
and that its return is embodied with that of
Polk, TO which it is not attached for election
purposes. Kittson was formerly Pembina
county. He acknowledged it was morgan
lied, and said its return should PROBABLY have
been made to the senior county in its leg
islative district. This was an informality,
nothing new, and ought not to vitiate the re-
turn, and if it did, the objection would. not
hold good as to Polk, which were in legal
form, and made by the proper officers.
Referring to the case. of Traverse, he said
it was unorganized and had sent its return
direct to the board.
In conclusion, Mr.. Flandrau said that the
objections, stripped of all subterfuges and
specous reasonings, were found to consist of
a few informalities that ought not in just
ance to yitiate the returns made. The sub
stance, the voice of the electors was before
the board, and it had no right to step in and
say that that voice should not be heard.
MIR. GILMAN.S REPLY.
In his reply Mr.. Gilman stated that there
was no disagreement as to the duties of the
board. Their duties were merely ministerial.
But in the performance of this ministerial
duty they had got to consider certain facts.
When return was all right on its face,
signed by the properly constituted officers,
the vote must be counted. But the board
| must know that the returns received are
from counties belonging to the district, and
If returns are received from counties outside
it would be their duty and they would not
hesitate to throw them out. The board
must also know if returns received are from
legally organized counties. 1t is not asked
that any vote be thrown out for mere infor-
mality. Our objections go to the fact that
the board is called upon TO canvass votes it
has no more legal right to receive than if re-
turned from Dakota county.
1t is conceded that Big Stone is not an or
gained county. Now if not organized what
authority has it to send its vote in here.
And it cannot send it's vote to another county
to be sent in here unless attached to such
county fer legislative purposes. Counsel con
cedes there is no legislative authority for
Douglas to receive and return this vote. The
legislature never having conferred such au-
thority upon Douglas county, the returns SO
made cannot be received and canvassed by
this board. The argument of counsel that
because of the appointment Of county COM
missioners with power to appoint other
county officers, the county is organized, is
absurd. There must be a specific legislative
act to complete an organization. The
supreme court, in the case Of Big Stone,
has very clearly set forth the
difference between the establishing and
organization of q county. The
act of establishing county means merely
the setting apart of certain specified terri
| tory to be at some future time county, and
organization is dedicatory act vesiing in
| the people the power to elect officers for the
governance of the county. In order to make
an organized county there must be a specific
legislative act, comforting upon the electors
residing therein certain rights and privileges,
and no such act can be found in relation to
the counties objected to.
As to Lake county Mr.. Gilman said he
need say nothing, counsel having conceded
the points raised. Counsel also conceded that
Kittson had no organization. He might
with equal justice concede the same Of
Douglas and other counties named. No law
could be found for sending the return of
Kittson to Polk. 1t might with equal au-
thority have been sent to any other county
in the State. Counsel lays great stress upon
the point that all that is wanted is to get the
votes in here. That's where the trouble
comes in. The votes have been sent in, but
not through the regular channels, so that the
board does not know the legal from the dis
honest vote. That the board might be able
to determine this, the law provides that votes
shall come to you in a certain specified way.
Garry out the principal advocated by
counsel, and our auditor might
make the returns for the entire
| State.
| Mr.. Gilman then took up the santi county
case. The law says the auditor and two
justices shall constitute the county canvass
ing board. Under the law the board is not
created until three persons are called
When created, majority of the board can
act, if one is for any reason absent. The
difficulty here is that the board never legally
existed. Further, a person not recognized
by the law Y as called in, and not only joined
in certifying the returns up to this board
but in canvassing the vote 1t is principle
of law, announced time and time again in the
case of corporations that, unauthorized per-
sons taking part in the proceeding, vitiates
| the whole. The theory of the law is that the
influence of an unauthorized party in such a
case cannot be arrive d at, and therefore that
the entire proceedings must be annulled
| So in this case, it is impossible to tell how
the influence of this outside and unauthor-
| lied party was exercised. We do know
that returns favorable to Mr.. Donnelly were
not returned from several precincts of the
county. In brief, the face of the returns
show that an unauthorized person acted in
making the canvass of this vote. The vote
is therefore void, and should be rejected by
this board.
Now, how do the returns from Hennepin
county stand? 1t appears that the officers of
three voting precincts undertook week after
| they had made their return of the vote cast,
as provided by law, to correct such return.
The law provides that precinct judges
| of election must proceed to canvass the vote
| Immediately after closing the polls, and con-
tinue in the perfo1 nance Of that duty until
such canvass is fully completed and returns
thereof made to the designated county board.
It is O well settled principal of law, decided
in numerous cases and by our own court
o. we'll, when Judge Flandrau was On the
bench, that canvassing board having
made its canvass and adjourned, is functions
0ficS0, and from that time forth has no
more to do with such returns than any other
citizen. It appears the county board under
stood the law, for when these supplemental
returns were made to them, they declined to
incorporate them into their regular return. but
certified them upon separate sheet of paper
for the action OF this board. The return is
clearly unauthorized and illegal, and should
be rejected.
Another point, said Mr.. Gilman. There
is something a little singular about the fact
that blanks should be sent out by the State
officers emitting space for the Congress
sional vote, the most important Office to be
filled. It operated very disastrously to Mr..