Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1890-11-14
STILL UNDER ARGUMENT,
The Election Nandauus Case Pending
Before Judge Seeds The Vote in
san Miguel and Valencia,

/ La the mandamus proceeding against
.he Santa Fe county board Of commits
sionegs, the court this afternoon permit
ted the argument to proceed upon the
understanding that the county comnls'
aioners would present full and complete
answer to-day respecting thoir ipfoTma-
ton concerning the reception and disap'
pearance OF the ballot box 81 precinct
No s.
Mr.. Knaebel commended that the board
erred in rejecting the poll books
of precincts No. |, and l6;
in refusing to consider the
substitutionary or duplicate certificate
furnished by the judges Of elections
showing the true result OF the election in
precinct 8, and in refusing to examine
the tallies OF the votes in precinct l. l.,
wherefrom it appears that four more votes
were cast for B. NJ. Read for the assem-
bly, than were counted by the judges.
AS to the first three preciLcrs he in
sisted that it was an immaterial irreynlarity
to transmit the poll books outside of the
ballot boxes, instead of being enclosed
therein as required by the statute.
He dwelt on the distinction between mere
resulative or directory statutory provisions
and such as are mandatory and essential !;
and he quoted numerous presidents to
show that all matters OF merely formai
procedure in elections may be disregarded
80 long as the actual vote OF the people is
made manifest upon the whole record
He cited the case of mandamus instituted
by G. W. Lewis against the commission
I ers Of Bernaalillo county, in which the
supreme court held, under the old law,
which required the poll books to be trans
mitted outside OF the ballot box, that it
was not fatal error to seal up the poll
books inside of the ballot box, and that
in such case it was the duty OF the COM
! missioners to open the box and count the
returns concealed within. As to the
Gaisteo precinct, No. s, he contended
that, in contemplation of law, the re-
turns were before the commissioners,
and that the burglary did not release
hem from the duty of ascer,aining their
purport.
To this point he cited analogous cases
! from Missouri, in which 1t was held that
the mere ministerial duty OF counting the
returns did not begin until the returns
were ascertained and that, in ascertain
ing such returns, the commissioners were
bound to use their common sense and
make inquiries and discover what the
returns in fact were. He cited the statute
directing judges of election to furnish
duplicate certificates, and claimed that
the new certificate produced before the
judges had all the effect OF the original
aud showed what in fact the stolen re-
turns amounted to.
If the commissioners lacked learning,
ability, or moral courage adequa to their
duties, it was in the power OF the court
in this proceeding to enlinghten their
dsrkened intellect and vivify their moral
nature. AS to precinct No. II, he
claimed that the commissioners had
authority to compare the returned certii-
cate in the tallies OF the vote and to cor
rect the error 80 appearing by allowing
Mr.. Read four votes Improperly disal-
lowed by the judges of election.
Up to 3p. M, the attorneys for the
board had not made their return relative
to the stolen ballot box. The argument
continues.