Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-02-16
This view was controverted by members

This view was controverted by members
of the committee, whereupon jerks SAID II
it was not still in force then the power to
declare the result of the election and issue
certificates reverts to the Governor as the
supreme executive of the State. Repuo-
licsn members of the committee questioned
Jenks ss to The necessity of the canvass by
the County Clerks, which did not effect
ANYTHING, and could not effect anything.
to all of which questions jerks answered
he could not tell the reason for every law,
he could only cite it and give his opinion
of its force.
jerks states that the members of the
Legislature had certificates OF election from
th e Governor. except nine members rom
Silver Bow county, four Democrats and
five Republicans, whose seats were con-
tested. These nine certificates were found
in the Governors Office after he vacated 1t,
uns gned.
Saunders admitted that this was the case,
and withdrew his statement to the contrary,
made earlier in the day. The Democratic
members of the Legislature did not use Ger
tifcates from the Governor believing the
certificates of the County Clerks office
were the correct and legal ones, but the Re-
publicans used the Governors certificates
in effec,ing the organization OF their
House The registry list in Preclnt II,
Silver Bow county jerks said, was made
Republican, and contained lo3 names;
that the list seems TO have been made
under the law, filling all It's requiem ents.
The election law, a modification of the
Australian system, is very strict. and all
the details we're carried out with the utmost
strictness and rightly, as ehown by the
affidsvits OF the election officers. None OF
the official tickets were missing, nor were
any false ballots cast. The list shows Ia
ballots were cast out of a registry OF 1S3
votes.
jerks said the affidavits by members Of
the Election Board say no one waS EXCLUDED
from the count except one man, who was
drunk and raising an uproar; but even II
the election officers did violate the provis-
ions of the election law so as to prevent
voters from expressing their views. II
throwing out the precinct would result in
changing the result, then the violation is
treated as of no force. The County Board
was not really Canvassing Board, and its
refusal to count the votes from precinct "a
was an assumption of power it did not pos
sess. 1t could only make al abstract of the
votes. A mandamus proceeding to the
Board to include the vote of precinct "a was
had, and the mandamus was issued, so
| that, in the eye of the law, the only certlh-
Gates of the votes from Silver Bow county
| that went to the State Board contained the
| votes of precinct "a. If the acts of usurpa-
| ton of the State Board are rubbed out, there
| is a clean record.
In answer to questions by Senator
Evarts, jerks stated that after the ballot
had been deposited in the box there ex-
/ listed among the election or canvassipg
| boards no power except to count and tabu-
late the votes cast. And, again. as to the
| limit of the power of the Senate in making
an inquiry into the election of members,
he said it could pursue every voter to the
| last resort, but it would be unwise to exercise
| the power after coming into contact with
the findings of Judicial tribunal that has
! jurisdiction.
Adjourned till March LIST.