Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1891-02-05
JUSTICE and the LAW.
Continued from LIST page.

= if the law is obeyed by canvassers, a
n parties will secure the rights to whicl
u they were entitled by the result Of an,
~ such election.
20 1t was urged in argument on behalf 0
ii the petitioners that the court had nj
" power to control the discretion OF petition
g ers when they were acting as canvasser
OF election returns, but an examination
k of the statute shows that they had no dis
=, Cretonary powers. The statute com
,, manded them to canvass "all OF the re
d turns, and declare the result from the face
of the returns" therefore the argument
" fails to point out a want of power in the
:, court in this respect. Counsel for peti
l. TONERS also contend that petitioners are
9 answerable alone to their conscienCes aud
II their constituents for failure or refusal to
properly DISCHARGE their duties as such
= canvassing officers; but this contention is
f conclnsively answered by the statute on
the subject and need not be further no.
8 tiCed. Sadly defective indeed, would be
a law, which placed the rights and
= interests OF the people of coun-
ty in the hands of Git might be-
irresponsible and INSCRIPTIONS board
of canvassers who were account
able only to their consciences and constit-
uents. Fortunately the law of this terri
tory is not thus defective. Jurisdiction in
regard to election matters having been
, specifically conferred upon the courts of
this territory, it is difficult to see how the
case of Dckey ct al vs.. Read ct al, 18th
HIS becomes authority in this case, for IN
that case it was held that jurisdiction had
not been conferred, and therefore the
process was void. The failure to exercise
the power conferred does not destroy the
power. That is clearly shown by the case
OF Neiser vs.. Thomas ct al, II s. w. Rep.
page 725, in which the court refuse to take
Jurisdiction, but say that they do not wish
1t TO be understood that they would not
exercise jurisdiction, even in an election
case, upon the presentation OF proper
case. That was an INJUNCTION case, but
was really an attempt to contest an cleo
ton and sought to have Mr.. Thomas
right to the office of city marshal of st. |
Louis set aside on the ground that he was
disqualified. To determine this question
evidence must be heard, and hence it was
simply an attempt to try contested cleo
ton case in an equity court, and jurisdic-
ton was properly declined.
If we accept the view OF the Illinois
case contended for by counsel for petit
TONERS, that Canvassing boards, In cleo
ton matters are an independent and CO.
ordinate p'l neal power, absolutely free
from the jurisdiction of the courts; what
means this array OF decisions of able
courts, both of law and equity, in which
they have taken an exercised jurisdiction
In election cases, and especially as to
canvassing boards? 1t seems to us that
f0nfopfiot, 20 Ia |
Illinois court declined jurisdiction under
the law OF that particular state, as applied
to the case presented to the court. The
fact that some courts exercise jurisdiction
In election cases while others do not,
serves to prove that the courts await
the presentation OF proper case before
attempting to exercise an existing
power. And further, that while there
are election cases of which the courts OF
equity will refuse to take jurisdiction, {
owing to the particular phase of the case {
presented, Still there are very many
phases of election cases of which courts
both OF law and equity will take and ex-
excise jurisdiction, Numerous cases are l
reported showing the power Of the courts /
over canvassing boards, and our statute s
gives the courts comprehensive juris- s
ulctlon over them. i
This brings US 10 the consideration of {
the Injunction proceeding in the light OF
what has been said. {
The bill alleged III substance that at the
election held in Santa Fe county Novem-
Der 4, A. D., 1880, Benjamin M. Read )
and Joseph B. Mayo were each candl .
dates for the Office OF member of the =
house of representatives. of the legislative :
assembly OF New Mexico, and that /
Thomas B. Catron was a candidate for .
of the council of said \
legislative assembly, that they we're !,
voted for at said election, =
and that the returns showed u
that they had received ma u
majority of the votes cast at said election '
Tor such offices; that petitioners aud one II
George l.. WHY'S were the commission !,
ers OF Santa Fe county, and were by law u
to canvass the returns OF said y
election within six days after the election, II Il
leclare the result, and forward certificates II
Of election to those having received a ma y
ority of the votes cast; that the said =,
board had assembled, bat that they failed, u
neglected and refused to count the returns II
rom precincts |, 2, s, IL and IL OF said y !,
although the returns from these a
precincts were before the board in regu- ~
ar and perfect condition. " "
That the failure of the board to count !,
the returns from those precincts would u
affect the result By showing u
hat other persons than compliments y
we're elected, when in fact compliments .
had received majority of the votes cast; ?
that said commissioners had threatened
10 declare the result from partial can
vass and issue certificates to others than .
for said offices that ii such =
certificates were issued great and ire u
parable damage will be the result to COM |,
claimants and the public generally; that u
It may, and probably will resultin causi ng >
suits and expensive and vexa.
tious litigation; that complainants will ;
institute mandamus proceeding to compel Il
the board to canvass all OF the returns,
but that before such proceedins can be y
made effective, the board will issue or a
ause to be issued, such fraudulent Ger =
tifcates.
Upon this bill writ of injunction is Z
sued as above set out. This bill brought
TO tho courts attention case where +
BOARD of canvassers had refused to obey Il
the law, and not only that, but that they $
we're about to do plainly illegal act and ii
uerpetrate fraud liable to cause multi <
plicity of suits and great injury, which ?
;ould still be prevented by the prompt 3
action of the court. The court was bound
to know the law, and that the act about
10 be committed was plainly illegal and
fraudulent. The till alleged that 8
the canvassers had refused to canvass tn t.
returns from five precincts, although the q
returns were before them in Irregular and Il
perfect condition." and the court was
bound to know that the law commanded
this board to canvass all Of the returns, s
and declare the result from canvass Of il
III he ra,urpo ord tbot ~ roo illouol | q