Southern standard. (McMinnville, Tenn.) 1879-current, 1888-12-01

GOV. Taylor and Secretary OF State
Allison, composing the State Board
of Canvassers, yesterday morning
heard argument and received briefs
in the Bates Evans contest.
EX-Gov. Marks, Spared Hill, Esq,
and Mr.. Moon, the latter of Chat
tanooga, appeared for Mr.. Bates:
Hon. Sam Watson and Judge Dillin
for Mr.. Evans. The Board of
Canvassers may announced their
decision tomorrow.
The joint brief of Ex-Gov. Marks
and Mr.. Hill on the one side, and
that of Mr.. Watson on the other, are
given in full as epitomizing the cases
of their respective clients.
ARGUMENTFOR BATES.
"The ground on which the GER
tificate of election is claimed for Mr..
Bates is clear.
BY the general law the Sheriff has
the power at any time to amend his
return or certificate. 1t is his continu-
ing duty to certify the truth. The
Office of his certificate is to give the
facts. The power is one belonging to
that class not exhausted by its exer-
else, but continuing. This is the
general law, and the constant
practice is not only to permit an
amendment, but if need be, to re-
quire the Sheriff to amend his return
until the real facts be disclosed. But
our Code by section 1906 puts this
objection out of the case. There it is
provided that no return or certificate
coming from a Sheriff to this board
shall be rejected for any reason
whatever if it contain matter which
can be clearly understood. Here the
certificate can be understood! 1t
comes from the Sheriff. Whether
it be called an original or an amended
return, can of course make no differ
ence. So says the statute. The
general law says so. Hence, no room
for debate. This result being reached,
it follows that the whole certificate
originally amended is to be read to.
gether. When this is done, the only
possible question is, what does it say
is the fact? When this point is
reached, we know that the Sheriff
has declined to count, return and
certify the votes of certain districts
, for either candidate. The reason he
assigns for not doing so is that it was
impossible for him to perform the
: duty, or the reason he could not find
; what legal votes the candidates
respectivelyreceived in these districts
He says he could not do this for the
: reason the valid ballots and the VOID
ballots were so confused it could not
be known how many valid ballot:
, were cast for the respective candi
dates; and for that reason he, fails tC
count and certify that vote.
If he had certified that 100000 voteE
had been found in one box, no ont
would assert it was his duty to certi
fly how the vote was cast. All would
' concede that under such state o
: facts it would have been his duty t.
t decline to certify such vote. 1t i
l not a question of degree, but one o
g power. If in the case he supposed i
: would have been his duty to decline
a to certify the vote, so it was equal!
a his duty to decline in the case il
t hand. ..... .............
But this case stands on far highe
y ground than the point stated. Her
l taking the whole certificate togethe
;, the Sheriff has wholly failed to coun
and certify this vote at all. Thi
5 being 50 this board cannot undertake
Z to supply the omission of the Sherfl
Il If for any reason he has failed t
count and certify this vote, hi
5 omission cannot be supplied here
u What is meant by his return an,
! certificate is that he has officiall,
J. given particular votes to particula
/ candidates. Not alphabetically an
{ conditionally, bat really and uncon
: ditionally. All this board can do
U to canvass the vote certified for eac
- candidate! BY this is meant tn
/ valid votes stated by the Sheriff t
have been given to each candidate
If for any reason he had made a mi:
take, this board cannot correct i
r This result is not conjecture; it
n manifest by the clearest reason.
d is not to be overlooked that tn
20 Sheriff must state and certify the vot
as to give it countable quality by TIL
APP board. He refused to estimate
IS because he knew part of it is voiC
, Whether. then. he ought to hay