Alpena weekly argus. [volume] (Alpena, Mich.) 1871-1893, 1881-01-05
The PRESUME Isle Case.

men composing the majority OF a
county canvassing board, to dis
franchise the voters of one or more
townships for mere clerical errors
committed 10y the township inspec-
tors Of elections in making out
their reports Of the votes east in
their respective townships. Ifsuch
actions be permitted, then the
person who makes out the town
ship election returns, by neglect
ing his duty, can have the whole
vote of his township or ward thrown
out by the county canvassers, and
thus deprive the voters of his
township of their constitutional
rights of suffrage, and change the
result of an election from what a
majority of the voters intended.
Such a system will not, we be-
lieve, be upheld by persons who
desire a fair and honest election,
and that the votes be counted as
cast.
As we understand the case of
the two DISTINGUISHED townships of
Posen and Krakow, there is no
charge made of corruption or of
fraudulent voting, and the election
in the two townships was as fair
and lawful as in any other town
ship in the county. The charges
are neglect Of clerical duty by the
inspectors of election.
The Returning Board, in the
published minutes of their pro-
ceedings, give as the reason why
they threw out the votes of
the township of Posen, that the
returns were signed 10y one person,
and they rejected the vote Of the
township of Krakow because the
returns were only signed by two
inspectors, while the law requires
that the three inspectors should
sign them.
The facts in regard to Posen
appear to be, that the inspectors
did not have blanks enough to
make the returns on, and thus on
ly part of the returns were signed
by the inspectors. The remainder
of the returns were afterwards
filled out by the township clerk
who signed the names of the in
pectors to them.
The case of Krakow is much
stronger. There were three in
spectors at the polls but one Of the
inspectors neglected to sign the
returns, and the consequence be-
ing that the returns were only
signed by two inspectors, who,
however, formed a majority of the
Board.
If canvassing board can throw
out the vote Of ward or township
because only two inspectors OF
election sign the returns, it gives a
chance for fraud that will not be
accepted or approved by the peo-
pie, and places the power of de-
termining who shall be declared
elected, in the hands OF few men.
and thus offers a premium for at
tempts at fraudulently changing
the result of an election. For in
stance, if one of the inspectors OF
election of the First ward, should
refuse to sign the returns of the
votes cast at the next election,
then the city canvassers, according
to the Krakow case, could throw out
the vote of the First ward, and the
result of the election, as regards
city officers, might be materially
changed. Such an action would
be similar to that done by the
Pressure Isle Returning Board re-
garding Krakow.
Such a system would be a vio-
lation of constitutional rights oil
citizens; it would revolutionize the
system Of voting, and would place
the elective power in the hands Of
a few INSCRIPTIONS men, who would
arrange elections to suit them.
selves. 1t would tend to under
mine the foundation of liberty, and
we do not believe such a system
will receive the approval or sup
port Of any citizen who desires
honesty in the elections.
In the case Of the Republicans
VS.. the Fusionists, of Maine, about
a year ago, the Supreme Court of
that State decided that clerical err
rors should not deprive the people
of their rights of suffrage, and un-
der this ruling the Republicans