The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1882-12-06

The following extract from the de-
cision of the Supreme Court in the case
Of oglesby vs.. Sigman, COS Mississippi
Reports, 500 has been quoted to show
that the Secretary of State could not
have legally received frcm the Commits
sioners of Election of Tate county an
explanation of the discrepancy between
the certificate they had rendered of the
election, and the accompanying tally
sheet or memorandum. Speaking Of
the Commissioners, the Court said:
"Having made their canvass and de-
clared the result and transmitted state
ment of it to the Secretary of State, their
connection with the returns ended. Any
error committed by them is not to be cor
rected by requiring them to re-assemble
and correct it"
To ascertain whether this rule would
apply to the Tate county case it is
necessary to ascertain whether the facts
are the same in both cases. In the case
of Oglesby VS.. Sigmsn a petition had
been fled in the Circuit Court of Tuni-
ca county to compel the Commissioners
of Election to re-as3embge and canvaSs the
returns made to them BY the inspectors o.
the ssreraI UOsiag places, and to make
statement of the result Of such re-can-
vass to the Secretary Of State. The
petition alleged that the Commissioners
of Election had counted 500 ballots
which were illegal because they con-
tanned certain marks prohibited by the
laws of the State. The object was to
compel the Commissioners to reject the
alleged Illegal ballots, after they had been
counted and The result reported By them.
1t was upon the facts set forth in this
petition that the above quoted decision
was rendered.
The present case is wholly dissimilar
to the former in fact and in circum-
stances. No illegal ballots are alleged
to have been voted. No recount of the
ballots was required or necessary; nor
interference with the returns, but sim
ply an explanation of what was pal pably
slip of the pen, or discrepancy, in the
statement Of the Commissioners themselves.
II can readily be seen that if the Com
missioners were allowed to reopen the
boxes and recount the votes after they
make their report to the Secretary of
State, the door would be open to the
preparation of innumerable frauds and
total change of the actual result, fer
partisan and personal ends. But no
such consequence could flow from the
correction of an apparent or real dis
crepanoy in the returns after they had
been made, assuming that the tally
sheet was an essential part of the re-
turns. The presumption is that when
the court said the Commissioners could
not re-assemble and correct an "error,
they intended to restrict the rule to
such facts as belonged to the case before
them when an order was asked for COM
polling a recount with view to throw
ing out certain ballots which were al
legged to be illegal and not to restrain
the Commissioners from explaining
clerical error in their own report.
Whether We are right or wrong in
this construction of the meaning of the
Court, we cannot be mistaken in saying,
since it has given rise to interpretations
as numerous as the sayings of Del
phic oracle, that new decision is abso-
lutely needed so that the public may
know what is the proper Interpretation
of the Election law of 1880.
In this connection, it may not be out
of place to quote what was said by the
Supreme Court of Illinois (25th Ill. 328)
that Sin considering as to the form of
the returns, a board should consider the
substance and not be too technical. If
there is a substantial compliance with
the law, it is enough" (McCrarys
American Law of Elections, ca. The
meaning is that the fundamental law Of
the right of the people to have effect
given to their will as declared through |
the ballot-box is paramount, aud must
not be annullqd for trivial causes