Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1882-11-18
A THUNDERBOLT!!
THE RETURNS FROM MALAD AND
JUNCTION THROWN OFT.
Messrs Leadicy and BiXby Count Then
selves In, and Their Opponents OUT.
Messrs. Gray, Bixby. Dillcy, Eanland.
ingham, Lewis, Rnicx, ETC., Also
Counted In.


ingIam, Lewis, Raicx, Etc, Alst
Counted In.
The Official canvass Of votes is
completed, with the exception Of the
footings, as the TINES goes to press
60 o'clock p. n.y.. By throwing out
the votes cast at Malad and those
cast at junction, (some 500 in all }
many Republican candidates arc
counted out and their defeated OPP
ponents counted in.
The pretext for throwing out the
returns is that the polls at Malad
and junction were not opened where
ordered by the Board, but
opened 10 miles away At
Malad County Commissioner Bixby
moved the polls himself, brought IN
the returns, and then RAISED
THE POINT IN THE BOARD,
which called for the following reply
from District Attorney Hawley:
TO the Hon. Board of County Commissioners of
Alturas County. II.
GENTLEMEN:-While sitting as a
Board Of Canvassers, your Honora-
BILE body, this day, asked my opinion
as follows: "Does the holding of
an election ten miles from the place
appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners vitiate the election?'
In answer l respectfully submit
my views thereon as follows:
Time and place of holding cleo
tions are of the very substance there
of and the provisions of the law re-
lating thereto are mandatory and
not directory. To hold an election
at a place not authorized by the
Board of County Commissioners, and
at a place not appointed by the
Board, in my judgment, renders the
election therein void. AS matter
of public policy this should be so,
and the Supreme Courts Of mum
Der of the States have so decided
In support of this view of the law
governing this matter refer the
Board to the following cases.
People VS.. Cook, Contested Elec-
ton Cases, p. 452
Knowles VS.. Yates, 3lst Califor-
MIA.
Chadwick VS.. Mildew, Contested
Election Cases, p. 251.
Juker VS.. Commonwealth, Doth
Penn. Statutes, p. 1913.
Miller VS.. English, Zabr. 81.
Mr.. McCrary, in his admirable
work ON elections, which is universal
ly accepted by bench and bar as the
highest authority in such matters,
plainly lays down the rule of law gov
erning herein in substance as | have
stated it.
McCrary on Elections, sections
ia and 1l5.
therefore conclude that if in anv
precinct in this or any other county
in this Territory the officers of election
moved the polls from the place duly
appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners to another and differ
ent place any considerable distance
therefrom, then, in such event, no le-
gal election was held in such precincts,
and the votes cast, or pretended to
be cast at the place to which the polls
were moved, might as well have been
thrown into the nearest river as into
the ballot-box, SO far as any effect
they would have upon the election.
Another question which naturally
presents itself in considering this
matter. is the power of the Board of
Canyassers to reject returns from
such places. While in my judgment
the Board of Canvassers act in a
ministerial capacity only, and are
not clothed with judicial or quasi.
Judicial powers, still I cannot be-
lisve that the law contemplates that