The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1884-06-04

The insnectors and clerks OF electloh
h.d = right to refuse to answer any ques-
t;on which tended to subject them 70
cr;n,inal prosecution. and the court WIS
right n letting them judge OF this question.
Iris remark applies to many cases ~here
the question arose as to various
Whether the contestee himself eoulu La .
this question and make TINS oolection
where the witness did not, ana was en. -
Iv willing to answer IN reiatloa 70 ns
returns, we do not now decide, as no a
. .t.a.;t;ss On the point have been produced
before us. Only one witness was SHOWN y
have been willing to answer. -
The testimony OF Vasser as to me
frauds attempted but not committed al inc
Aberdeen box was inadmissible.
The attempt TO prove by Leon ths'
-;s,s an INSPECTOR at Rome, had sald tha'
The inspectors intended to give that ooA y
cantestee if they had TO do II by stuuiiis
Inc ballot box, was incompetent, DeTausS
&C., nR,eial act could not be contradlcteu
-, berasav II is to be remarked tha'
SIM il shown by the record to have peeh
-, ;nsDector at Rome, though from olher
80 81 il we suspect that he was not
IT, ,yas a commits Toner for the whole eouh-
II was incompetent to prove by WSl.
-. H.. nesee officer at Walton's box, th1'
| ~ ;nsneciars were going to stun the pal
| III box at that place. The peace ollioet
had nothing to do with the counting
| ina, box. Ii he satr ballot box stulnus u
n,iscount, il could then be proved oy nm
| otherwise. not. He had no oincial chArS'
ter except to preserve the peace
10. 1t was entirely competent 10 SUSAN
The returns as made by the testimony OF
w .e,,,,assers who made them. Ii Is al
-. comnetent to sustain official acts oy
he testimony of those making them. IL Is
haI;syad thai we have thus indicated Wha'
sLonId have been the rulings on all tue
nnee,ions which must arise on announcer
rial in the court below. We append
ta,r words as to how this case should DC
,r;ed The petition is far more volumlnous
th.r necessary, 1t sets forth all the al,
tarad errors committed. 1t only neeaeo
an allegation that petitioner received .
n,a;ority Of the legal votes cast. inns !,
contains in the closing paragraphs. ~ ~
eIse was proof. The petition may YET p'
o amended as counsel may be advised -
: starts with the legal presumption that th'
& certificate has been given 10 the right MAJ
!, | aud this nresumption continues throuSh"u
I the whole trial except where overthrow
. hv testimony. Unless, therefore, on IN
n whole trial the contestant ahrmatlVel.
I shows that he has received majority
! nlnralitv of the legal votes cast, ne car
v never succeed In this case he can hls
k rely upon the majority M he has oheJ car
o for him at the four undlsputed OoAeS
p Aberdeen, South Aberdeen, Athens an,
: Dausicalt. He may attack the other boXe
- anv way he chooses, and if he does so 10
n fraud he must affirmatively show IN
10 fraud This he may do by any means AZ
Is nronriate to that issue and he overtime"
! lire legal presumption against him VINE
n he shows actual participation IN any ul
of fair and fraudulent practice OF those W"
ct handled the votes or returned the count
al that box. and in so doing he may auol
% his own order of proof. No mere err0
I'd omission or irregularity on the part oil u
es returning officers can result IN setting aslo
he the certificate. Any practice when III"
or he thought purposely to have Been r.
US sorted TO for influencing the result WI
at have that effect, if those who made the r
n turns knew of or sanctioned it. Speaklr
no for myself alone, and not for the court
he think that the primo fueid presumption
in correctness in the certificate fails wheheN
Al il is affirmatively shown las Is alleged
as this easel one side only participated
tv making out the returns, ana the other 81
,Of was excluded from COuuuSNiHS w
ID, and making the count In such case
lis sneak more accurately, think the pr"
as tdcia presumption Of correctness never
,r- taches. We all think that 1t fails where
is shown that there was any intention
tb wrong on the part of those who made i
he count Whenever by any measures I'll
Dr. prima facia presumption is overthrow
IN. either side may show what was the tr
he state of the vote at that box, which
or never to be entirely thrown out II 1t G.
to by any process be discovered what IN
ed true state was. Where this is wholly II
Dis possible. and in this event only, can the e
pi. tire box be rejected. Going through Z
m whole county in this way, the eontesta
U.S. can only have verdict when he ainrm
snt lively shows that he had majority IN t
entire county OF the legal votes cast. Z
tire less he does this, verdict must 60 Tor I
The coptestee. Our whole election laws CO
IN template fairness and perfect ascertainmt
ot of the will of the voters. This lnqni
ar should always be the guiding star OF !
ec- investigation, and nothing save a poslh
nds requirement OF the statute like that
lse- excluding marked ballots illustrated
ere Oglesby V. segman, So Miss,) should
to allowed to defeat it if that result can
,te, avoided. Reversed and remanded.
I .a..I