The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1889-12-29
ONE MORE PROOF OF 1T
Aneeher Deeisson That % Dead Against the
Astioa at the silver How R~savaIng
H8oard--Law that Doesn't Peruait
Oae Man tn Threw Out .
Whole Ppseinct Vote.

the Silver Bow hoard clearly exceeded it's
powers iT out the vote of the
tunnel precinct. Here il what the Judges
of the supreme court Of Kansas agree i'm
saying:
4 Where the r eturns OF an election are regular
10 RI; :; ami md Sr :. %,ss to q CANVASS ca.,yass'i sEE.. ns"' nn % my
y. ounL hat illegal vot. = had been received. or
q CLIFTON issf ,rA' iaw, %r vs. .r Nlarshnii 60. pr 70 Nam issa i = '"e
.. upon the trial OF AN original prors-hlng Of
whom rests tn burden ~ the issues mus, hrst
8. Where a def ndan,, in an action of quo war.
ranto against him, admits IN his answer that
was elected 10 the office In dispute, but alleges
rIaintii obtained his ei.";ion Ss fraud and illegal
Votes, yet h the DEFENDANT, having by the plead
test many s"rpoTsinT nus answer IsdT,"snt viii
(Syllabns by the COURT
original proceeding i'm quo warranto.
E.. A. Austin, for plaintin. Hargrave&
Mccormick and ID. R~athbonc, for defend
Horton, CD J. This is an action in the
~ i'm thisc court by II. L.. Brown against II.
G.. Jcffrics, to Dust the defendant from the
office of county commissioner of the first
legged. among other things, that ON the sth
day of November, 1SS1-that being the reg
the board of county commissioners of
Rush county for the first district the
plaintiff and The defendant were candi-
dates for that Office: that at said election
in the district the l,iaintiif received 3DS
legal Votes for the Office of commissioner,
that no other person was voted fur at the
election for the office; that plaintiff re-
ccived u majority Of all of the legal votes
for the office, and that the returns OF the
election were duly made according to law;
that ON the nth day of November, 1857.
county canvassers of Rush county, and
that upon the face of the returns the
plaintiff was duly elected TO the office as
county commissioner of the first district
of the county. The petition further al
legcs that the plaintiff at the date of the
payer of said first district of Rush county,
and in all respects cligibl tn the office to-
which he was elected; that, after the re-
the plaintiff duly qualified. i'm the manner
prescribed by law, and had his bond prop
handed the office OF r.. C.. Jeirries. the de-
PENDANT, and has also demanded the office
OF the board OF county comm,ssioners OF
fused, and continues to refuse, to s,Irrcn-
der to the plaintiff the possession of the
properly intruded himself. The answer
of the defendant admits that the plaintiff,
rccciyed q ma, oM of ali OF the ~ votes s. e"s;
for the office of county commissioner of
Rush county for the first district, and that
qualified as such officer, and demanded
| possession of the office. The answer fur
plaintiff AZ the election were illegal. and
should not he counted; that the election
board of Center township i'm the district
formed "a conspiracy. To defeat "a fair ex-
preston of the popular will. and refused
- perform their official duties as MEM
sons who acted as members OF the elcc-
ton board for Center township knowingly
received illegal votes. and counted "a large
tiif; that the plaintiff was present when
the returns were canvassed 10y the board
the frauds committed at the election in
his interest, and acquiesced i'm the. action
of the ~canvassing board i'm declaring the
defendant elected rs county commissioners
from the first district of said Rush county;
that he, in the presence of the canvassing
board at said time, refused to accept the
office of commissioner, and then and
there voluntarily waived all his light to
the same: that subsequently the defend
office, and is now discharging his official
duties as II member of the board Of county
Since the answer of defendant was filed
no attention seems to have been paid
whatever tn the interests of the defend
ant.
attorneys for the defendant failed to APP
pear. and no testimony was IN file sus-
tanning the allegations of the answer nor
has any Testimony ever been presented tn
,m,r mn. nIian,,pn,iunss, or ,be ns ~ sue o
the Illegal votes and frauds in tire election
of November sth. Under the admissions
of the answer, tn the effect that upon the
face of the returns of the election of the
9Th of November, 1887, the plaintiff re-
cetNcu tne MINORITY Oh All the votes cast
for the office of county commissioned of
the first district of Rush county. and the
other concessions i'm the answer, the
plaintiff is entitled to the office claimed
! by him, unless the allegations OF the an
swer avoiding such election for fraud or
illegal votes he sustained by testimony.
In election contests, the face of the re-
turns control. unless for good and sufficient
reasons the returns are set aside, ar ille-
gal votes are shown To have been cast for
the person claiming his election under the
rctui ms. The duty Ct the canvassers is
mainly ministerial, i'm counting the votes
returned and making n statement of the
result. Steele VS.. Martini. q Nan. 439.
"Where returns are regular ! . form, and
genuine. ~ canvassing 4 carl may not re-
ject and refuse to canvass them on the
ground that illegal votes htd been re-
ccived. or other frauds or irreHula rites
practiced at the election. Such matters
are to he inquired into by n tribunal for
contesting elections, or in quo warranto
proceedings. Ii is "a common error for n
canvassinR board 10 overestimate it's pow
crs. Whenever IL IN suggested that illegal
votes have been received. or that there
were other fraudulent conduct and prac-
tices at the election. il is apt to imagin
that il is its duty to- inquire into these al
legged frauds, and decide. upon the legality
of the votes. But this is "a mistake. Its