Butte semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1886-1890, 1889-10-16
SPARRING FOR POINTS.
Lawyers Disagree About the
Validity OF Election
Returns.

The Canvassing Board VIII
Make No Decision Until
Monday.
Rrom Sundays Daily.
The canvass of the vote OF Silver Bow
county was resumed at 10 O'Clock yester
day morning with about the same number
OF people present as were in attendance on
Friday. At about 8 o'clock the work VA
ianished-that il all the returns had beer
ecannsd and the totals shewn thereby had
been transferred to the score sheets in thu
hands OF Clerks Booth and Sproule. In
accordance with the agreement previously
made, the objections OF counsel we're noted
when the Questionable return was in hand
and thereafter reduced to writing and cub
mitted for argument ut time TO be desie
mated. The multiplicity OF the objections
nearly every return beng fanlty in som
real or fancied particnlar-was comment 81
an uniavorable kind upon the intelligence
and earefulness OF the judges and clerks oI
election taken "a whole.
A on Friday the board wa unwilling
that the statistical results Of the canvass
should b made known until the work
shall have been completed. The lack ol
facts and figures in the public prints is d1e
therefore, to that ruling. However, during
the day candidates and friends OF candi
dates kept cases, SO to speak, upon the
result Of the deal, as 1t were, and it was
claimed that several results had been
CHANGED. For instance. Mr.. Holland
claimed his election as assessor by five
votes over Mr.. Hynes, and it was said that
Sullivan for sheriff would be defeated on
the change in the Burlington precinct,
where instead OF 1855 votes as shown in
the figured returns the "deadly parallel
marks gave him 100 votes less. 1t
In not likely that Mr.. Sullivan has been led
into believing himself the recipient OF 100
more votes than he was entitled to in that
comparatively small precinct. and mas
much % he says that his majority 10 still
"a votes there is little reason to suppose
that the returns show a majority for
Lloyd. Furthermore since the board has
not yet declared itself upon the exclusion
Of returns the matter OF maiorities still
hangs trembling in the balance.
The board and the party attorneys
Judges Dixon and Kirkpatrick orthe DEM
ocracy, and Judges Knowles and Thomp.
son Campbell. Esq, for the Republicans
re-convened at 7:3O O'Clock. With the at
torneys on the Democratic side OF the house
appeared Judge Mcconnell OF Helena, ex-
chief Justice ofthe Montana supreme court.
The crowd OF interested auditors wal very
large, filling the board room and overflow
ing in large numbers into the hallway and
the Office of the county clerk. In q general
way the crowd was orderly, but at times
OF patriotic fervor or the part OF the at
tornsys the partisan sympathizers ap-
plaudsd enthusiastically.
Judge Dixon opened the argument for the
Democratic constituency and early in his re-
marks disputed the right OF the board to
act in q judicial capacity. He said that in
his opinion the objections offered by both
sides were valueless becauseifthey were sus-
tanned the arriving at a result would be in
definitely postponed and would not be
reached until an entire re-can ass OF the
votes had been made. In treating with
those protests q uniform rule would have
to be adopted and il that rule threw out q
contested precinct all othsr equally objec.
tionable precints would have to be SINH
larry disposed OF whether or not there had
been an objection to them. The Democrats
took the position that the matter OF PIT o.
tests was outside the jurisdiction of the
board. The functions OF the board were
ministerial, not judicial, and the question
OF fraud was not one for that body to de-
tsrmine. All the board was required to do
all the power it ~had-under the statute
was to add up the returns and announced the
result. The powers OF the board as de-
fined by the Montana statute, section
1880, page 130, were very ~lin,ited-'to
open the returns n make an abstract Of
the votes" II the returns were regularly
received and from the prop r authorities
they..rnust be counted and the result an
nounced. The board OF ~canvassers did
not sit to determine the legality OF the
vote cast o dtcide whether the judges
and clerks OF election had complied with
the law. The authorities permitted agood
deal OF lititude in the ~formalities OF cleo
ulOus xACLO LAC&0lbA ulC Dhot uIu " IL
feet the result Of the vote did notinvalidste
the election. Itdid not matter whether the
judges were those appointed by the board
nor whether they were under oath, so that
the election was fairly conducted and the
votes counted honestly. In the pres
emit case there was nothing suspicious
on the face OF the returns; nothing
to show that unqualifiedlipersons had
voted. There had been errors in enumer.
ating the votes, but the board had rightly
taken the tallies az indicating the number
Of votes cast, and there was no pretense
Of fraud. The fact that the register at Nc
Cune's wood camp had not done his duty
did not under the law disfranchise the men
who had voted there. The proposition
that the error Of O. single man, or Of three
or five men, should invafidate the election
OF q precinct and disfranchise perhaps hun.
dreds OF nen q preposterous, and il car
ried into effect would make a farce OF cleo.
tions; would make the will of the people
subservient to the will Of a few judges or
clerks. In support OF his proposition that
ir~ Irregularities which did not effect the re.
suit were not upheld by the law, Judge
Dixon cited "McCrary on Elections" Sec
ton 22e, which declared hat the
powers and duties Of c~anvassing boards
were ministerial rather than judicial and
bnaG D mlnlBGerldl Omcer was exceeding DIS
authority when he undertook judicial acts. |
The board could not 60 behind the returns;
its duty was simplya matter ofarithmetic.
Substantial compliance with the law On !
the part OF the makers OF the returns was
all the returning board should require. 1t
could not take proof as to fraud and was
not empowered to receive afidavias as to /
fraud atthe polls. The speaker cited a de-
cision In second Montana, $40, the capital |
removal case, by Judge Knowles, to the Ell.
feet that a~canvassing board was compelled |
receive the returns despite allegations OF
fraud. He cited also the fifth Montana,
the Jefferson county county seat case; the
tenth Iowa; the twenty-second American
Reports 27S, q Kansas case; the seven.
teenth Nevada BIT. In all the cases cited, |
points similar to those raised in the pres.
emit instance had been swept aside by the
courts. All that the Democrats
asked was that the board should add the
returns: whatever showing was made
would be satisfactory to them. The re.
turns came in u~nimpeached and the board
could not 70 behind them. The question
OF fraud was for O court Of law to consider.
Thompson Campbell, Esq, replied to
Judge Dixon, combining his remarks to the
from Precincts No. 8 and No. 81.
In the former the Judges were ~appointed |