The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1884-03-01

III these ~ votes hnd Dten counted lOf
contestant by the State Canyassing Board
contestant would have had u majority OF
ID votes over c0nteltee, aud II would
have been the duty Of the Governor 10
have given the certificate OF election TO
contestant,
BY their action In thus rejecting these
votes VIZ contend that the State Canvass.
Ing Board did the contestant an net OF
great Injustice; that II said board had
properly performed ite duties the certill'
cate Of election would have been award
cd 10 contestant, aud II there had been
any contest the position OF the parties
would have been reversed, and the bur.
den OF the contest would have been upon
the cOnteatee,
The duty Of the State Canynssing Board
In respect TO the matters before ment on.
cd, ig prescribed In section 1855 Revised
Statutes Of Ohio, ~ follows.
within ten days after the llrst day OF
December next after such election, the
Governor and Secretary Of State shall, In
the Office OF the Secretary Of state, In tho
presence OF the Auditor OF State and Az
lOrney General, open the returns OF ab'
stract number two, made 10 the Socre.
tary Of State, for State Commissioners OF
Common Schools. member OF the Board
OF Public Works, Judge OF the Supreme
Court, Clerk OF the Supreme Court, and
Representative TO Congress for ench
Congressional District; and II II appear
that returns have been received from all
the counties, agreeable TO the provisions
OF this chapter, the Governor aud Secre.
tafy Of State shall forthwith proceed 10
ascertain the number OF votes given
for the different persons for such 0lllcea,"
This section has received a c0nslruc'
tlOn by the Supreme Court OF the State
OF Ohio, In u declalOn rendered by that
court on January 80. 1883, In the case Of
"The State OK, Rel. James ", Campbell
w. Charles Foster, Governor, aud Charles
Townsend, Secretary Of State, 3S Ohio
State Rep, b09,"
The question before the court In said
case was ~ TO the correctness OF the ac-
tlOn OF the said State Board OF Canvass.
ers In canyaeslng the return OF votes for
member Of Congress NJ the election OF
October, 1882, for the Seventh Ohio Dis.
trict, and In speaking OF the duties OF
such board, under the statutes aforesaid,
the court holds m f0llOwe,
"It is true the defendants asa can
yasslng board were required TO ascertain
the number OF votes given for The differ
ent persons for the office; aud the certl.
1cate waa 10 lasuO 10 the person no elec'
ted. The person NO elected wna 10 be
determined from the returns before the
board. The returns are only evidence OF
the will Of the electors. expressed by
their ballots. II this evidence IL such M
10 produce reasonable conviction OF whnt
that will N, II should bo allowed legltl.
mate effect. II the person receiving the
certificate did not receive tho plurality
Of votes m shown by the returns, fairly
and reasonably understood, the defend.
ants have not performed the duty en-
Joined upon them
And tho court In tho Same case further
says: .,,
vasaiDg tho returns IL thus stated by
Judge Cooley In his work on Constltu'
tionnl Limitations, and, WE think, cor.
rectly The action OF said boards " 10
bo carefully confined 10 an examination
OF the papers before them, and n deter
mlnatIon OF the result therefr0m, In tho
light Of such facta OF public n0tority,
connected with the election, ~ every
one takes notice OF, and which may on.
able them 10 apply such ballots ~ arc In
any respect imperfect 10 tho proper can.
dldntea or offices for which they arc In.
tended, provided the intent IL sufficient.
ly indicated by the ballot In connection
with buch facts, no that oxtrnneous owl.
denco IN not necessary for this purpose.
C00loys Conetl. Linn, 623."
We do not deem II important TO fur.
ther examine the law In reference 10 the
duty OF canyaeelng boards. inaemuch M
onr own Supreme Court has clearly do.
nned che power and duty OF such board
In the State OF Ohio, IN n case arising NJ
the snme election and FOR the uame
office. aa that now under consideration.
Tho rule thus established by tho gu
preme Court OF ohio In this. fha will
Of tho electors, ~ shown by tho returns,
fairly and reasonably understood. ahall
prevail, II when rend In tho Hight of
facts OF public notoriety, connected with
tho election, such retufne produce fea-
sonable conviction OF what that will N.
Lot us test the action OF tho State
Cnnvaesera In rejecting tho ~ votes,
above mentioned by this rule OF our Su.
preme Court.
We claim that the following "facte Of
public n0t0riety connected with the
existed IN this case, to.wIt.
1. Contestant was the regular n0mi- |
!. . !. - al. n.u.nnrailn nm tiy far ita NJ.