The Indianapolis journal., 1885-12-18
THE CINCINNATI ELECTION CASES.
The Grounds on Which the Supreme Court
Decided in Favor of the Democrats.

COLUMBUS. O.. Dec 1.-THE syllabus in the
Hamilton county senatorial cases as given by the
Supreme Court to-day is as follows;
Daniel j. Dalton, Clerk, ct al. VS.. The State
ex rel. Richardson; error to the Circuit Court of
Hamilton county. Owen j.
l. Under the provisions of Section 2981 IRE
vised Statutes), defining the duties of the can
vassers of election returns which require that
''in making the abstracts of votes they shall not
decide upon the validity of the returns, but shall
be governed by the number of votes stated in
the poll books" the duties of such canvassers are
merely ministerial, and they have no power to
decide such returns, or any part OF them, invalid
by reason Of frauds at the election or in the re-
turns thereof as made to the clerk, and have no
power to exclude such returns any part there
of from the count for such reason.
2. In mandamus proceeding to compel such
canvassers to omit certain votes for candidates
for the General Assembly from the abstracts,
the court has no power to decide upon the validi
ty Of such returns; and it is for the court,
in such proceeding to decide or to command
the canyassers to decide such returns or any part
thereof invalid by reason of such fraud.
g. The remedy in such case is by contest be-
fore that branch of the General Assembly for
which the party affected is candidate, and that
remedy is exclusive.
a. In such mandamus proceeding the court
has no power, where there is an excess of votes
above the number of names of voters upon the
poll books to command the canvassers to reject
all Of such excess above ten Ito be divided pro-
portionately between the two parties) and to
count all below ten; or to command them that
in case the excess is large enough to show fraud
they reject the entire returns where they would
affect the general result, and simply to deduct
the excess where the general result would not
effected thereby, such court having no power to
control, destroy or limit the exercise of discre-
tion in public officer by writ of mandamus.
5. The scope and Office of a writ of manda-
mus is defined by 6741 (Revsed Statutes): "Man-
damus is writ issued in the name of the State
to an inferior tribunal, corporation, board Or
person, commanding the performance of an act
which the law specially enjoins as duty re-
suting from an Office, trust or station" And
where the canvass OF the returns for a county
is nearly completed, and writ of mandamus is
applied for to command the canvassers to omit
certain specified returns and votes for candi-
date to the General Assembly from the abb
stracts the court, whose action is invoked, has
no power to proceed to make a complete
canvass of the returns from all the precincts of
the county. make an abstract thereof, decide
which candidates are elected, and issue writ of
mandamus, commanding the canvassers to-
adopt such result as their own, and commanding
the clerk to issue certificates to the candidates
so decided to be elected.
6. The jurisdiction which Article 2, Section
G. of the Constitution confers upon each house
of the General Assembly to Judge of the cleo
ton. returns and qualifications of its own mem
bers," is exclusive.
7. pretended judicial determination of any
other tribunal in FORM deciding that candi-
date for either house is elected, is nullity.
judgments reversed.
johnson, j., dissented.