Weekly independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 1887-1914, 1890-12-21
DAxoa - A ~pEAnLoeg

IHta .Ht#at-E LeWN HaHNHE..
Thu Justices OF the, Supreme Court
,uest to-day at Carson "a "a Board of
Canvassers to canvass the vote OF the
late s~lectionstor State officers. Tho
Cnronicie learns that there is ques-
ton in regard to the power Of the
Board to canvass tho vote upon a call
for Constit utional Convention. Thors
10 no law specifically authorizing the
v of that vote by the Boasd,
nor in fact is there any statutory pro-
vision for its being done by anybody.
The general election law of1S65 makes
it the duty Of the Supreme Judges to
mset in the Secretary of State's Office
on the third Monday OF December
succeeding a general election, when
tacy shall proceed to open and eau.
vass tho vote for Member OF Congress,
District and State officers" There
being nothing said in relation to any
othor vote. We understand that the
question will be considered to-day by
the Board, as To its powor to do any
taing else than that which is specific.
ally mentioned in tho statute; and the
proprioty OF doing 50. 1t is decidedly
the opinion of the Chronicle that the
Board should canvass and declare tho
vote. The question is merely tech
meal one, and the Justices, not sitting
as a Court, but merely as u clerical
body, should not DO bound by such
strict technical precision as governsl
its action in judiciary matters. 1t is
neithor reasonable nor in accordance
with common sense that the will OF
the people, expressed in a manner
prescribed by law, should be defeated
by lack. of strictly lawful authority to
announce a fact which is we'll known
to every voter in tho State. The JUS
tices of the Supreme Court sitting as
the legal C~Anvassipg Board of the
State, in tho absence of any other
constitutional or statutory provision,
are, in our opinion, tho o persons
To canvass and announce thu vote, and
we are certain that every fair minded
person, whether in favor OF or opposed
To a convention, would approve their
action in doing SO. Then agian, ii
law pissol in 1887, colf ers upon the
Bpird tho p)SS. ID cluyLs3 the vote,
or rather III lkss 1T its duty, to canvass
and announce the vote upon constitu-
tional amendments which have been
submitted to the people, and it would
cs rtainly not be an unreasonable u.s.
sumption that under that statute the
Board would be justified in acting in
the samc capacity in tho matter OF n
Constitutional Convention.
II the Board fails to act il this
matter thore is n strong probability
that no Convention will DO called and
that tho will Of tho people will be
most shamefully defeated. 1t has
boon suggested that the Legislature
is the proper body to canvass the vote.
It is n well-known fact that those
who generally control our Legisla-
tures, and who will unquestionably
control the ensuing one, are bitterly
opposed to holding n convention.
Article XVI, Section 2, OF tho State
Constitution Directs: "If it shall mp.
pear that a majority or tho electors
have voted in favor of calling n con
y~ention the Legislature shall Mt the
next session provide by law for calling
Il convention" Now, "if it shall mp.
penr" thdt such has boon tho vote,
the mcmbers OF the Legislature can-
not without violation of their official
oithsfail to enact the law as directed
by the Constitution. Thoy aro not,
however,, sworn to take such steps us
arc necessary to make at appear"
ail il they are disposed to be as tech
meal ms the Cunvassing Board will be
III fails to canvass and declare the
vote, they can defeat the convention
ana tho will OF tho people without
any actual violation: of tho Constitu
tion, or their ofieiul oaths.
Chronicle.