The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1880-12-18

the Inspectors who certify returns to
the Commissioners and the Commits
sioners who make and certify returns
to the Secretary Of State.
The duty imposed by the State stat
ute which was alledged to have been
violated by the Commissioners is that
prescribed in section no of the Missis-
sippi Code # 1880. "Thc Commits
sioners of election shall within ten
days after the day of election transmit
to the Secretary Of State Il statement
of the whole vote given in their coun-
ty.n The information charged that this
duty was not performed, alleging that
the Commissioners knowingly and
wilfullyn omitted to perform this duty
in the terms of the State statute, that
is, within ten days, &c.
\ very large number Of the votes
given in Warren county were legally
received and counted by the Inspec-
tors. The ballots bore Il distinguish
ing mark or device condemned by Sec
ton 1877 of the Mississippi Code. BY
this Code the Commissioners If cleo
ton supervise and direct the whole
machinery of the election, and act as
board of revision, when the returns
are forwarded to them from the sew
eral precincts. They are required to
canvass the returns, and ascertain
the result and then forward state
ment. To enable them to make this
revision or canvass the poll books and
ballots of each precinct are required
to accompany the returns. In this
case the Commissioners on examining
the ballots found that large proper
ton of them were condemned by sec
ton 137-and in making their state
mcnt they separated the legal ballots
from the illegal ballots, and gave the
rcsuIton the legal ballots, and also gave
the number of illegal ballots for each
precinct, which they did not include
in the count. The whole number OF
votes was set forth in the statement
forwarded to the Secretary of State.
That officer, consulted the Attorney
General who gave an official opinion
that the receiving and counting Of
ballots was violation of law, and
that the commissioners were right in
rejecting them.
1t is perfectly clear that the Inspec-
tors of the election violated the law i'll
counting the illegal ballots. Why
they were not indicted, or prosecuted
by the District Attorney Of the United
State, we do not know. 1t was as
much a violation of law to count lille
gal votes, as it was to reject legal
votes, and such acts are embraced in
the first part Of the section of the Re
vised Statute United States, we have
quoted while the act of the Commits
soncrs relating to the evidence Of the
result of the election, clearly is not.
There seems to have been Il prurient
desire to condemn the rejection Of
these ballots by the Commissioners.
1t would have been very poor result
for Northern digestion, to have Il
Federal Court condemning the Inspec-
tors for receiving and counting the
illegal votes, for they were in the
main Republican votes. The Com
miSsionrrs who excluded the illegal
ballots were selected for prosecution.
The information charged but a fail
ure in point of time to forward
statement Of the votes given. If the
intention was to prove an untrue
statement, a false certificate, the in
formation must have charged the act
to have been done fraudulently. If
the intention was to prove any act or
omission, under the first part of the
section, 5jlj, then the unlawful intent
shOu d have been avCrred. The facts
showed neither false certificate, nor
any suppression of evidence, nor any
failure to forward a statement in time.
If it was intended to show that the
Commissioners rejected votes which
should have been counted, that act
should have been specifically charged.
The information was 50 framed as
to be confined to the case of neglect
to canvass and make out the result, or
a failure to send statement of it for
ward i'm the time required. Under the
the question of the power
Of the Commissioners in canvassing
the precinct returns, or in revising
them did not arise. Hence the cOun-
sci for the accused, aware of the fact
that a statement had been made and
returned ia due time, Withdrew the
motion to quash the information.
There had been some kind Of under
that a the prosecution relied
IN an untrue certificate or state
ment of the votes given, founded on
the rejection Of the illegal ballots, the
question Of the power Of the Commits
sioners might he informally decided
IN the motion, and the Attorney Gen
lral satisfactorily sustained in argu-
nent his official opinion, and other
counsel on the same side supported
that opinion. The withdrawal of the
however, left nothing to re-
Iuire any opinion or judgment on
such a question.
The indictment charged no illegal
act OF the Commissioners in the cam
vass Of the returns, nor any fraudulent
or certificate, nor any act
done with intent to influence the
The proof put the ques-
ton Of power beyond the reach
n the Court. The return was truly
made and in time, aud it was
conceded on the trial that there
was no unlawful intent, and eonse-