The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1888-11-17

~. hosrsI Of eanvassers OF King county
..~,nx completed the count Of all the re-
tr,ns which fhey considered regular, met
4 10 O'Clock yesterday morning 10 hear ar
currents REGARDING the admissabsiify Of
certain precincts mentioned in yesterdays
pogT-rsTEfsasKscgs claimed 10 be scchni-
eally informal. A protest against count
spx these votes bad been fled the day be-
sore BIZ James Hamilton Lewis a. attorney
fsr the Democratic county central commit
tee Mr.. Lewis appeared at the meeting ON
behsjf of the committee. and contended
tat BY reason OF the failure OF tho cleo
tiou officers In the ten precincts concerned
10 sppend 10 their returns their oath
az once, these returns SHOULD
not Be counted, He referred to
pectIons Of the code requiring an oath to
b administered to Inspectors and judges
81 elections In the several precincts before
entering on their duties and commended
that unless this oath appeared as part of
he returns the board could not Justly rec
oxnize these returns. He laid down the
proposition that In cssee where the oath OF
election officers was omitted from the re-
tirns. the presumption OF fraud was raised
snd that IN consequence the board of can
ysxsers were not authorized 10 count the
yetfs 30 returned. He further contended
that the csnvassiDg board was strictly 9
ministerial body and that II had no power
TO determine as 20 the adnissibilfty OF re-
turns which on their face appear 10 be reg
liar ssd that this question q asst be left 20
the decision of . higher court In case OF
contest He claimed the returns in cues
ton were Irregular, hence the canvsssing
board could not receive them.
Mr.. r. b. Aibertson, chairman OF the Be-
publican county central committee, ap-
pexred In support OF the returns which
were claimed TO be irregular. He sub
mitted the proposition that the eanvassing
board was purely q ministerial body and
that the function OF the board was simply
clerical: that IL was obliged to coant the
returns submitted to II rs knch by the
couDty auditor; that 1t was not proper
function Of the board to pass upon any ir-
regularity In the election; that II irrcgu-
larity had occurred. IL was the province of
higher court to determine the effect OF
such infofmality. He further commended
that grantlng that the trregularity OF re-
turn was 4 question for the canvass
evidence before the board that every
provision in that respect had not been
complied with: that every presuIn ptioH Of
law was in favor OF the counting the re-
turns on the general principle that every
officer in the discharge of his Official duty
IL presumed To have discharged sach duty,
and cited numerous cases In support Of
that proposition. He further commended
that. granting the oaths In these cases had
not bean daily administered, the election
In the precincts concerned was not thereby
tnvalidated; that the inspectors and judges
elected were officers de faef0 and acting
IN coi0se ogicif, and that By reason OF fall
urs. OF these officers to properly qualify,
the electors In these pteciscts could not be
disfranrhlsed. Among other cases I'm sup
port OF this proposition. Mr.. Albertson cited
case reported in 18th Illinois. In which the
present chief justice OF the federal supreme
court, Hon. Melville W. Fuller, figured as
relaior. In this case, . certificate OF cleo
ton was awarded by the cauvassing board
TO the opponent OF Judge Fuller ON the
ground that the returns from q Chicago
precinct did not show that the oath Of OF.
dee had been administered TO the election
judges. In that case. mandate was sued
out by Judge Fuller and q writ was issued
upon final hearing of the cause. Requiring
the board 10 give a certificate OF election
TO Judge Fuller ON the ground that ab.
senee OF the oath OF election oficers was
not material defect
After considering the argument, the board
came 10 the wise conclusion that the votes
east by the sovereign electors OF King
county should be counted as cast, and the
work of counting the 10 precincts began.