The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1880-05-12
Total 1904

returns it was the ministerial duty OF
the Secretary of State to tabulate and
the said result. That he
was prevented from doing this by the
Judgment of the court (Of the Fifth
District Court rendered in the matter
of the State OK rel w. F. Blackman vs.
Secretary of State, which commanded
the said officer to count certain alleged
votes which had been returned by an
order of the Parish Judge OF Grant Sit
ting as District Judge in chambers,
the District Judge, w. F. Blackman,
being recused by reason of being par
ty to the preceding. Thatin obedience
to this judgment the Secretary OF
State had included these additional
votes 10 his official count, which chan
ged the result of said election shown
by the returns first forwarded to the
Secretary Of State and showed a ma
iority of twenty.three votes for Black
man. That relator had appealed from
this Judgment to the Supreme Court OF
the State, and that this court reversed
the Judgment of the District Court and
ordered the Secretary of State to tab
ulate ana promulgate the official re
turns of the election in accordance
with the returns first received at his
Office.
That the relator had submitted this
decree Of the Supreme Court to the
Secretary Of State, ard requested him
to comply with the same and to recti-
fy the error lie had committed in coun
ting and tabulating the additional
votes returned under tho judgment
rendered by e Parish Judge of Grant
but that the said officer had declined
to comply with this decree and make
the tabulation and PRONUNCIATION de-
handed by tie relaior. He prays for
a writ of mandamus to compel him to
do SO.
The answer of the Secretary of State
to the petition as follows:
"Wlll A. Strong, Secretary of State.
defendant herein, for answer to rela-
TORS application for maninmus, denies
all and singular the allegations iii his
petition contained.
Respondent further AYERS that he
has already in pursuance of law, made
PRONUNCIATION of the result of the last
general election held il this State. aud
that he has exhausted The power to
make PRONUNCIATION Of the result Ut
the said election.
"Resp0nhcnt AYERS that the law does
not authorize ar direct him to make
any amendment OF his said promnlsa-
sion, and that the court has no power
to compel him IT, correct or amend
the same.'
The mantlamrs WAS refused by the.
judge quo and the lelasor has APP
pealeh.
We learn frnm these plca,lings and
the evidence III the REGARD that tlr re-
latnr and W. f. Blackman we've botl
candidates fur District Judge Of TIE
Tw. fifth Judicial District, composed al
the Parishes of Rapides, Avnycl|cs aud
Grant. That according to the electinr
returns first fox warled by the return.
ing officers to the office Of the Secretary
Of State it appeared that the relatol
received majority of forty votes
Before such result, however, comic
be promulgated, Blackman instituted
proceedings against the commissioner
of an election precinct in Grant Parish
for the purpose of having returned thu
votes from that precinct, which were
alleged to have been destroyed or ia
ken from the possession of the return,
ing officers. This proceeding was in
stitnted in the District Court of Gran
Parish, and Blackman being Judge o
that Court recused himself, and TIN
Parish Judge officiated and rendered
an order in chambers, nnder which
these additional returns were forward
ed to the Office Of Secretary Of State
Thereupon proceedings were institu
ted, on the relation Of Judge Black
man, in the Fifth District Court, Par
, ish Of Orleans, against the Secretary o
State t. compel him, by maiidamus, t,
count and tabnlate these additions
returns from the Parish of Grant. Til
Secretary of State, in answer to tina
application alleged in substance tina
he had received no election return
from Ward No. 2 of Grant Parish, bu
. that he had received returns, mad
under protest, of two of the three CON
missioners of that ward, under orde
!. Of the Parish Court; that he decline
the responsibility of counting said r.
) turns, and that his duties rotating I
the counting of the votes and tabnla
ing the returns were purely ministeria
The mandamus was made peremptt
fry. An appeal was applied for by tt
Secretary Of State, but subsequent
abandoned by him, aud one was take
i by A. Barbin, the relator in this cas-
j from such Judgment.
Il On the trial of the case in the s,
preme Court the judgment of the Low
: or court was reversed, and as Il
9 opinion Of our predecessors rendere
in that proceeding bears material
upon the issues presented in the cai
before this court we give it in extens,
r '"On the merits we are clear that Il
|. court below erred. The duty Of Il
!. Secretary of State to compile the r
. turns under the provisions Of Act N
J, SO of 1877 and Act No. - of 1879,
/ psanifestly ministerial to the ertent til
. he acts ,oithin the purvie,o of the la
y But bis duty, # any there ,oas, wi
: reference to the return in questio
was clearly not ministerial, as it i
volved the decision by him, under d
l. responsibility of his oath Of ofie
u whether or not the judicial count al
's return was valid return. The du
9. not being ministerial, could not be 9
forced BY mandamus.
le But were it conceded that the fun
). ton TO be exercised by the Secreta
Of State, in passing on the return