Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1890-11-18
In the case before me the Judges wrot

NOT FeSlStereu Feuuft hu-dtpiH ttiU
word "rejeCted2" can not think SO; at
most, it was surplusage aud should be
djsrcgGrded 1t stands, then that the
Judges, performing their duties, marked
rejected after four names; they also
refused to count them the inference Is
inevitable that they did not vote, and,
therefore should not be counted, and the
Raard did right in refusing to count them.
now reach the laat and most import
ant question presented by the Issues here
H. Did the board act properly In relns-
ing to canvass and count the vote Of pre-
ciuct No. upon the alleged certificate OF
return presented to it bV Benjamin NJ.
Road? can readily understand bow the
board might properly hesitate hore and
doubt as to their duty, rho alleged re-
turn ID OF such n character MS to require
serious consideration before accepting it. .
Where we're the proper returns, that 1t .
WAS necessary ct all to consider THIS al
lcgod certificate?
The writ alleges that they had been in /
the possession OF tbo respondents and |
from them purloined, BY consulting
the abstract OF the pleHdtDgs at the be.
ginning Of this opinion, it will be noticed
that this is denied, 1t is also denied
that the returns were ever in the custody
Of tho board, but do not think the de-
NAL is of such legal character as to
overcome the presumption that the
Judges Of that election precinct have per-
formed their duties,
Facts should have been stated, show
ing that nothing WAS ever received from
any person purportiug to be such returns
al
the statement that they have no official
knowledge that there was any election
held in that precinct in 1890. That is,
certainly, conclusion OF Law and vitiates
all which depends upon it. Only by in
ference or argumentatlyciy ran | arrive
at deuial that there was never anything
/ in their possession purportng to be re-
turns from that precinct.
! An argumentatlve return to n writ is
bad, 10 Abhott's PraCtice Rep. 24l.
must, therefore presume that the board
/ had those returns In their custody. They
now allege that they have not got them,
nor do they know where they are. 1t
follows. inevitably, that as 10 person has
any authority to take the returns from
the boards custody, felony has been
committed, an outrage upon the cleo
tive franchise that will and does
call for the stern condemnation
of al! good citizens If the will
Of the people fairly and honestly ex.
/ pressed can thus be thwarted if because
Of q crime parties fairly and honestly
elected care not whether they be pres
idents or acequia oyerseers-Ca thus be
defrauded of their rights, aud by Conse-
/ quence the people not represented by the
persons they have chosen, and there is
no remedy but an indirect one, which for
! a lime gives the results Of IN election to
parties not elected and possibly for the
whole term, the sooner we declare pop
ular government farce and Il failure, the
sooner we will face the fact. No one for
one instant supposes that the board or its
clerk has had anything whatever to do
with the crime, and none regret more
than they do the unfortunate affair.
In the face then OF this apparent wrong
should be dereict in my duty if failed
to protect the ballot box and its sanctity
by making it speak the truththough absent,
can admit OF it.
The serious question then is, does it?
The board can only canvass and count
returns, and if they are absent there is
no subject matter upon which they can
act. The orr ginal returns are admittedly
not before them and it would
be physical impossiblity to can
vsss or count them. 1t has been
suggested that the board would in
such case be in duty bound to
make an effort to obtain proper
return. 1t is not necessary to consider
that suggestion, for in this case the re-
lator has furnished an alleged return in
substitution for the lost one, and de-
mands that it be counted. With it the
board dealt and determined that 1t was a
nudity. Here again it will be noticed that
| the board passed upon question of right
in the character Of court. do not say
that it was improper in toto, but do say
that the action goes far beyoud the power
which they themselves insist they pos
sess. Was that certificate presented by
Mr.. Read a return they should count?
1t depends upon an Interpretation of Sec
tons 1856 and 1897 OF the Compiled Laws
which are as follows:
Section l1oc. Tho said judges shall close the
election at 6 O'Clock in the afternoon. and I'M
medlately thereafter shall open the ballot boxes
and publicly count the votes cast for each can.
ddatc, certifying the poll books as provided by
| law; provided, that said judges of election shall
order that a copy of the certificates be entered
| in the poll books, then to be signed by them
and the clerks and transmitted to the justice OF
the peace Of the precinct provided further,
| obligated to give certified copies to the parties
interested that may solicit the same; provided,
that these copies shall not exceed four in num-
| Der
sec 1897 That said copies mentioned in the
preceding section sha be as va Id as the org
, nal certiti ats from which they were taken;
and such copies shalt be used and taken as
proof in any contested election In this territory
as though they were originals ~
Sec 1898 says: Every certificate shall contain
the number of votes cast for each candidate,
setting forth the same In writing and figures
without there being any alteration or change"
| 1t may be said Just here tn t precial com
piance with the last statute Is not necessary MS
to the canyassing board If from the certificates
they can arrive at the result upon the face OF
the returns. 1t is directory merely From sec
lions 1895 and 1877 we deduce these facts:
| LIST The judges must give certified certificates,
not exceeding four, to parties inter sted
I'd The said copies shall be as valid as the
original certificate from which they were
taken.
Does the certificate from precinct No. come
under these facts?
Admittedly it came from an interested party,
Mr.. Read. He was then entitled to its sses-
sion, and the presumption would be that It was
a genuine certificate unless we are to presume
that his possession was audulent, and that
eau not be. is 1t certified copy? The re.
spondeuts say no. II 1t is here meant by ce IT,
! fled copy copy with Al attes ing clause by the
parties autho lied to give 1t, that the foregoing
Is true copy, etc the this is fatally defective
Bat is hat the intention? 1t surely must be pre-
sum, d that the legislature intended this statute
to be construed by the rules common sense.
Now if it must be certined by the rule of general
cerrihcation, who is to do it-why the judges,
certainly. But how much more validity Is added
to the certificates after the judges ave once
said I'VE certify, etc, to gain ray we certify
that we certified " II one is fraudulent, why
not tn. other? If the first is true. then the other
adds nothing to It,
However, the statute itself explains this. In
the first prOvisO 1t tells us that a copy OF the
certificate is the certificate unsigned by the
iudpns After they sign the cnnY as il SnYS, -