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

In conclusion, Mr.. Flandrau said that the
objections, stripped of all subterfuges and
specons reasonings, we're found to consist of
few informalities, that ought not in just
ance to vitiate 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.
MR.. GILNAN'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 q 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 10 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 ar or
ganized county. Now if not organized what
authority has it to send its vote in here.
And it cannot send its vote to another county
to be sent in here unless attached to such
county fer legislative purposes. Counsel con-
codes 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. TIE 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 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 county. The
act of establishing county means merely
the setting apart of certain specified terri
tory to be at some future time a county, and
organization is a 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 specific
legislative act, comforting upon the electors
residing therein certain rights and privileges,
and no sach 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 j1stice 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 Tire
votes in here. That's where the trouble
comes in. The votes have been sent 10, but
not through the regular channels SO that the
board does not know the legal from tbs dis
honest vote That the board might be able
to determine this, the law provides that votes
shall come to you in certain specified way.
Carry out the principal advocated by
counsel, and our auditor might
make the returns Tor the entire
State.
Mr.. Gilman then took up the Isanti 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 INIT! 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, person not recognized
by the law az called in. and not only joined
| in certifying the returns up to this board.
but in canvassing the vote. It il q principle
of law, announced time and time again in the
CAGE of corporations that, unauthorized per
SONS taking part in the proceeding, vitiates
the whole. The theory of ths law is that the
influence Of an unauthorized party in such a
case cannot he arrived at, and therefore tina!
the entire proceedings must tie annulled
So in this case, it is impossible to tell how
the in1uence'of this outside and unauthor-
| lied party WAS exercised. We do know
that returns favorable to Mr.. Donrelly were
not returned from several precincts Of The
county. In brief, the face Of tho returns
show that an unauthorized persca acted IN
making the canvass of this vote. Ths vst1
| is therefore VOID. and should b rejee4as?
this board.
Now, how do the ressrns fss fsnnsPi.
Honn.y ya stsn0 49,. -, ia vssk -.
thew had 80 thGisk sps1fn q - vote cast,
a. psoviasd " ktO sofTSst saeh return.
~ - wst1Isa 1T psssfnct lodges
Of eaeu16samsst psosssd 70 eanvsas the vote
1as5disss1 aslsF eloning ths polls. and con-
Gnus II ~ psg1osnence OF that duty until
sush canvas = fully completed and returns
| eAeeoof mede to the designated county board.
| r b well settled principal OF Law, decided
in numerous cases and by our own conf
we'll, when Judge FIandrau was on the
bench. that q canyassing board having
inside its CANVASS and adjourned. IL fsncffoa'
cf;ric, and from tia. time forth las 10
more to d With suct returns than any other
citizen. 1t appears the os'anty board under
stood tho law, for whsf tae1e supplemental
returns WIRE made to them, they declined tn
incorporate them into their regular return.brs
certified them upou separate She. Of payer
! for the acioa OF this board. Tho return is
clearly uxau.ao-:1sd and ILLEGAL. and should
be rejected
Anosher point, said nr. Gilman. There
is something little singaia- abcu. the fact
that b,ants should be SGT cut BY the State
| officers o1i.ting space for the Congres-
gional vo1e. the most irnDoytan. oeIice to be
filed. IEoperated very d,5aatrousiT to Mr.
Donneliy. excep. IN Minneapolis. from which
We hau this more than question
able supplemental return. rs Suffered
| heavily = S.esrns, aseker. Isznti ard 9th
e. count;ss, fully cdsstsing Mr. WzshS1rn's
non-resuned vote IN Heroepin county. We
made noefort TO get this Last vote IN after
the CANVASS By the precinc. jodges- believing
| there W no authority for It, and we there