Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1879-12-18

che Rower - 49, Coass.
II the case Of Ne pssitiou for mauds-
mse against Secretary OF State Cove u
cempel hin to exhibit the election returns
Jsdge Virgin yesterday gave the following
Opinion:
Andre,e r. @. SmitA, petitioner. Q. Edeard
H. Gore:
Nahum 7. Hiil. ., Same:
There causes were heard on ketitious.
sfttdavits aud answers; and. afler hearing
and argument, the following order Of court
was entered:
The couclusioa IL clear that under the stat
utss af present existing, the REALTORS. haviag
the interest Get forth in the petitions. might
legally claim . reasonable opportunity to in
specf the Official returns Of votes from the sew
eral cities. towns and plantations in their re.
specuve districts. They had legal right.
under reasonable regulations to see them, ATE 2
they were offered for ex amir alton by the Gov
efDor and Council. Upon the constiiuiionsiity
ia ali respects Of the stsiutes, touching this
question, the court docs not undertake In the
present proceeding. to pass; bot 10 u the opin-
hon and rules that under the constitution it.elf
Independently Of the statutes, the same right
Of inspection by the relstors exists.
The court further holds that the respondent
rs Secretary OF State, IL the legal custodian Of
these oficisl returns, ~ Of other records OF the
State. responsible for their safe-keepiug and
bound to exhibit them at all proper times to
those whose interest 10 such rs to justify an
examine alton by them.
hut while IL 10 not doubted that the right Of
public inspection exits TO the xtent iDdic ated
sad m,y be asserted and enforced against the
respondent, IL he without cause refuses 10 eY-
hibii them upon demand therefor properly
made, II IL one OF the requirements Of The Con.
stitutiou that the Governor aud Council shall
n M
lively limited period and shall issue summons
TO s1ch persons - shall appear TO BE- elected.
he duty TO examine them necessarily includes
the right Of possession Of them for such time
as 10 required TO complete the examination.
The respondent could not lawfully assert
against the Governor and Council such . rishI
OF Possession n In their judgment would be
Inconsistent with the performance OF the duty,
devoived UPON them By the Constitution.
when. then. the right Of public inspection
comes In collision with the necessary posses-
sion OF the returns BY the Executive body sp-
pointed to examine them. the respondent can.
not be in fault II the former yields and the
latter prevails.
Upon the question whether At any particular
time while the Governor and Council are en-
gAxed In examining the returns. or under the
cireumstances then ex sting IL 10 reasonable for
them TO be open to the inspection Of oihers, or
not. the court will not undertake to pAss. 1t
would he lmpracticab!e for the court by process
directed TO the responder nj 10 Attempt 10 control
the action OF the Governor an5 Council In this
respect Nor 10 II matter over which the
court exercises . superinfending authority.
v bile engaged in examining the returns the
Governor and Council act In an executive CO.
pAcity. upon the responsibility OF their ofsici.l
station and the ssnc;ity OF their of4ciAl oaihs
They are the final Repositories OF trust and
power from the people ia regard 10 IT, Whist
limitations upon the rights OF others the per-
formance Of their own duty necessarily i'm
poses. they must determine. II has long beeu
the established law OF the ate ha; in any al
ter inirustsd 10 them the discretion Of the court
cannot Be substituted for theirs; that their
acf!on. within the sphere OF their executive
duty, In sfsirs submitted 10 their own judx-
meni. cauDoi be CONTROLLED by judicial pr.-e.-
] hey are In these rrspccts . coordinate branch
OF the government. over which this court does
not preside. II mandate were 10 issue. diree,-
ing the respondent TO exhibit the returns 70 the
reisior, there mus, siill BE- reservation In the
decree i,self. Of the right OF the Governor aud
Council 10 bold them eXclusiv.ly whenever
the ~ lhllme Mt OF constitutional ohlie>sSou on
their part impsrAiively demanded Il. he man
date, therefore, II Issued. would 10 nrms re-
coSnsIe this respons!bs discretion 10 the pro-
cess.
From the answer Ia the cause II appear, thai
when the relaior demanded OF The responded,
The production Of the returns they uere % the
possessiou OF the Governor and Council the
time for their eH amin q ION not ing sxplred
be law accorded to the relAior the righ, 10 see
The returns whenever An opportunity could be
Asordcd him consis;ently with the perfor nance
Of the duty devolved upon the Executive de-
pArtment. but IL lei the Governor and Council,
acting under the Obligation Ne aud responsibilities
Of their high osioe. the nnAl judges Of what the
discharge OF their own duty NECESSARILY re-
CURED. and whether. At any particular time or
under any special circumstances, there vAs in
'Ad . necessity 10 de,Sin them from The rel a,or.
whose right 10 ace them whenever II did no,
reasonably interfere with The performance Of
ofaciAi duty on the part OF the Governor aud
Council, WAS clear
Petition dismissed. Writ denied.