Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1891-02-26

present. like the other witnesses either us
officers or clerks of the officers testified,
one of them that no oilcr to
vote was in fact made by Stephanos. and
the others that they did not hear or see any
such offer made. This creates q conflict Of
testimony upon that point, and Il must be
clear to the Jury that such offer was in fact
made. otherwise the State has not sup
ported the charge in the indictment OF the
refusal by the defendent of the vote Of
Stephanos. II is difficult to understand
why the election officers should have con
sidered the right Of Stephanos unless he
had attempted to assert il, by oiler OF his
ballot But the question whether he did
offer to vote, or moi, is for the jury alone,
and not one for the court to pass upon.
Surprising you believe from the testi-
mony that, upon the occasion alleged in
the indictment. Stephanos did offer TO vote
and that the defendant refused to receive
his ballot, and upon the alleged ground
that the certificate of his naturalization
which he produced to the officers, as part
of his evidence of his right to vote, was in
valid, because il was different in its lam
| gtiage from blank form which the de
| PENDANT had shown at an earlier stage of
| the election and then exhibited as having
| been delivered to him as n guide in
| determiningu the legality of naturaliza-
| ton papers, you are then to determine
1 whether, Notwithstanding such alleged eX-
clisc on his part for rejecting the vote, he
is answerable for wilfully and knowingly
| refusing the vote of Stephanos, In order
/ that you may reach q satisfactory concli-
| sion on this point (and the ease turns upon
| the motive of the defendant it is proper
I that we should say to you what the law
| generally is, in eases of public officers
whose duties require the exercise OF ludg-
ment, and not simple action without dis
erection or option.
- a, ..p,i1r ttt IF lutx
officers (Which may be taken TO include all
who have power to Judge and decide before
final action are not responsible for what
are called errors Of Judgment alone; that
IS they are not held 10 infallible Judgment.
When they act honestly, and yet errone-
ously or bv mistake they are answerahle
to no punishment, nor 10 damages in q
civil action by party aggrieNed. Whether
4 however, their action is from mistake or
error Of Judgment, or is a wlful act that
is an act which they know to be wrong,
then they are liable and must answer the
consequences OF their misconduct. What
is then the proof to be that the defendant,
in prosecution for such misconduct,
knows he was acting wrong? That qles-
ton WAS answered by this Court in the
case Of the State against Alexander Porter
tcited here by the defendants counseD
tried in this county in lsl5, in which the
jury put to the Court which called for an
expression upon the very point.
Additionally we may state to YOU that If,
before defendant charged with wilful
and deliberate violation of duty has pro
duced before him the legal documentary
proof by which lie Is required to act III
making his decision, and yet he disregard
that proof and act against the necessity il
imposes upon him, his course will be
entirely without justification, or excuse,
and must, therefore, be taken to be Wlliul,
and with knowledge. Any other estimate
of his behavior, ii sanctioned by courts
and iuries, would place it absolutely in the
power Of election officers to disiranchise,
for the time being, voters of different pu
litical views from their own. In this CASE
the defendant had before him the lega
proof of the naturalization of Stephanos il
The form used by the district court of thu
district in cases of naturalization oi
foreigners, with the hand Of the clerk %
the court signed to it, and the seal of til,
court affixed. This was the legal docu
mentary evidence that Stephanos had /;
right 10 vote, if he possessed the qualilica
tions required by OR constitution ant
laws in the case OF natural born citizens
There was no controversary about Hi
possessing them therefore the rejection o
his vote must independent of the proof, b.
put on the grounds alone that such certli
| ctte of naturalization was invalid. Nov
us it has not been claimed during the tria
tlliI IL u III ANY ItSlttl lINull'l luG Illta7
! tiOn comes down To this-had the defend
ant any right to question the sutilclency o
such naturalization raper-thlls authenti
Gated according 10 the usage of all court
. whose acts IRE authenticated by ccrti1eat
5 under their seals and the hands of til
| clerkSp
/, There can be hut one answer to this
/ that he had not If not, then there is III
, ground for the plea Of error Of judgment
Fer there can be no error OF iudgmeIl
! where there is no right to Judge.
do not mean that i'll no case may que.
/ ton be made whether naturalizatio
1 papers entitle q party producing them {
: yotet because election officers may eertainl
= inquire into the identity Of the party HAY
i ing them with him with the person ma
, uruliZedl, but where they are, as those !
this case were properly authenticated b
the seal of the Strict court of the Unite
q states duly aillSed by the clerk an
i certified to under his hand their yalidit
n cannot be Impractical outside Of that colIr
and no man Or tribunal can be above
!. any Judgment to the contrary of the
:, legality, Stch being the law, how can
, BE- argued before you that the delendaI
!, erred in Judgment of the validit
x Of the Stephauos papcrs2
:. would seem Us if the only ground upo
n which Il jury could reach the eoncluSi0
d Of want OF knowledge of duty in sue
Il case, or 81 disregard Of it, would be gro
u ignorance in the officer or such stnpldit
! Of mind as would disaualify him fful
y Cumprchending such duty
But the plea is made for the defendal
Is that he was misled by the blank wht
d was delivered 70 him by one Of those of
m cious persons who obtained it from II
h officer Of the district court, and who we
ii themselves, it is most likely, sharp cnoue
=. to know it only applied to one class
" cases of naturalization. The sllghtc
comparison Of thar form with the CERT
III cate ii Stephanus would have. made
al manifest THAI they We're dissimilar. Al
Dr that the paper III the possession of Il
defendant was not in any respect authe
! ticated
4 Now before he adopted the latter MS b
u guide Of validity his obvious duty was
49 ascertain that Il was genuine and was
81 safe guide to 90 by, This he did not do.
I'd Now when an officer, judicial or otht
he wise, has the opportunity to aseerta
O. what, under circumstances arising,
IA which are expected e. arise, is his dut
4. and YET neglects 10 avail himself If it al
u chooses to act without such knowledge,
takes this risk OF acting on his own
sponsihility, and must be held 70 inten
30 upon Il Well-knoMn legal principle t
W consequences If such action. As the resi-
IL Of his own determination to 80 by his oN
n Will. M other conclusion is a rational .
IL unless want Of knowledge Of right a
~ wrong Be- shown 10 the Jury in some VI
~ While il is not exactly true to say Il
every man is bound TO know what the !,
for is, vet il is true that ignorance Of the Il
o. will excuse no man as il plea; and it is u
ri as before said that III the case Of one p
31 forming public function or duty VIII
e, the rights Of Others depend upon t
~ legality Of his acts he Il bound Cif iEnort
~ Of His dutyl to ascertain before he i
fn- whit ii Is. where il II In his newer to
It'll so. or abide the risk II n verdict agai
urt him and its consequences for neglect
this duty. For willul neglect Of duty