New-York tribune., 1891-12-30

ccnM MAKE of Il world he 10 vinlile nc con.iiti, !,
ton. and Go wrohe Icy lntra 10" To- ~ o"'e "''"
lie ha. 10 right lOI one moment 90 hohl. ,,
30 we come 10 the important q,c ton und.rly'ng rs
thi, casr-onsht the court to giant nnaiam .,
who has no isht nicr :hc CoS;l,ulon to the onirn
Can lie reiat,r come into court of law nhr nnd a,M I'd
Intrusion into the oHcc OF senair Well esahli'he
principles Of law and strong current OF autVP.'S ,h
qulrc these questions TO be ahS"erec III '"'
1t is undoubtedly tnc That the courts n s9nno, ,e1 by
quo warrantO try the TIL, - n cIdslat We 0h.e' ILL.,
the reator comes into court and asks IT, aid TO glore
him with apparent title - an ONCE ana py ~, i IL
nathwny IN bs 3 prnoose ntion into the Office and
upon the undspied facts the court is able to soc Una,
he is neGoe and it SIMPLY scb Gri.rmnaton @ It in
no way infringes upon tho jurisdiction cunnde, 70
the m E sen"te eyofsa %Py SoSG lave nSSan TIE
same qrestlon before II some e.cct0r in the NV l
Senatorial piG had @ lien r5nnGt e ,er he re,isd e % G IN
any sense proceeding on the behalf Of the people nor
We need not determine what th,S conlt "Dmm QUIZ
do il the mandams n this preceding & m M nad Seen
awarded upon TIE application Of tas pep% We asrs
that the state foad Of Canvasscrs act n!nlsteFiny
and that hey have no p3wc or on y. 90 10
nsttute on iuqury Ne 10 the eligibility OF the candl-
dats who were voted for BY the electors The daes ,no
ton Of eligibility IS to be answered by reference TO te
law as we'll rs ihc facts and; very wisely as think
they are rot clothed with authority to determine that
whether the minority candidate was elected: po,ro .,
The action or the action OF the STAG Boa,u y,
6sns Sandsmn! his in 'rsef eass Ike h@ .Gar S
sent their cases 70 the senate without either Of them
have Jurisdiction TO determine all the questions Of fact
and law involved IN the matsr i nsSc IT ISa asrS aEd
also find that his competitor was elected, thc result
viii be That election will have 70 Be ,s oraersd on In
person Gualifed to hold the Office and then they can
properly Represented n the senate It Is sn f, 0tiS, tnan
that the Constitution should be violated
In Guck as New "a Ind e3 4 was hs sHd That tSst
was known the electors the facts were such that
they were bound to know IT, votes cast ior nun "o,d
tn the CANDIDATE Teceivlng majority Of te legal votes
declared elected.
THE DUTCHESS COUNTY CASE.
Judge Peckham in his opinion In n application OF
The people ex rel. william G. Daley and John Piatt
ct al, respondents. vs. the state BOard VI
appellants, says in part:
The County Clerk acting as Secretary OF the Board
Of County Canvassers, OF which board he Is not hen
her assumed to sit in udment mpon e cIfh the
statement correctly sets forth the action OF the Doau
such statement Is to DO ceItned as correct ah
by the chairman and secretary Of the board ana q
copy thus certified and attached Is TO be denrereu
to the County Clerk TO be recOrded IN his olaGe A.. II
board has done It's duty in q valid way or not The
board that responsibility and the secretary Is
act taken. In this case it is alleged by the re-
ator that the board threw out votes II ought not 10
count, and hence the County Clerk Wae Iustneu & y.
his refusal 10 certify. This is great mistake Ihe
statute does not eau for ue VIEWS iS ha,a o "o
TO the validity or invandty OF Its action.
Hts refusal u Sign and temporary absence oa from h% I9
would paraze the whole election machinery from tii.
time. Upon the contention Of the reators sic1 an an
sumes a supervision the action Of the Board OF
Canvassers and in any respect IL be IN f's opinion
Illegal improper he refuses to attest the stameh, ny
of the result Of such action. and in order TO DO DO
entirely safe absents himself from the oflce or gs
where he cannot be found or steps INTO another Ste
and the result would be that nothing further can Do
done. II the County Clerk do not appear, ana II MS
deputy be also absent have no doubt OF e power Oh
the board 10 appoint secretary their place to per.
form the duties which appertain 10 that ONCE, ana
II the secretary appear but refuse TO perform MS egn
duty as secretary "a clerk of the body for which
lie Is appointed 1 think the body has pOwefs f,csp 10
10 attest under It's direction the correctness of the
statements 1t has caused To be made. A..
The whole scheme Of the stntute clearly shows th;ls
it was enacted so rs 10 secure before the Board Of
state Canvassers the physical presence 4 accurate
the boards Of county The question in this
case Is whether the refusal OF the county Cierh @ 10
and his refusal to send to the State officers properly
certified statements as required by law s paS'thhs ,h
The state Of nc osy fSm ce he
atested as stated. we're sent by the secretary pro
to the sfs S o fne oc dehs Of the (
Is one that was certified by the chairman and secretary
nro tenn and there is none that IL truly enDouics
he action Of tho Board Of Canvassers.
The real statements or the actual ana hohest COPIES
thereof sent 10 the state officers are the lmportant
ofcias refuse the performance OF their duies, ths
next best way to ana PROM @ e he
taken and In this case NE thnR that nnaer an uc w
the steps S6 to and ey tbe %os bS 3h
they sent to and received by the Secretary o.
ba considered BY the BO1T0 OF
state Canvasses the properly certified result OF the
canvass OF the Board of County Canyassers; ,n,
properly authenticated and containing the result OF
the legal action OF the BOARD Of County O Ganvasscrs rs
sut that the order the writ and the writ itself
should be modified by striking out the provisions re
the County Clerk Of Dutchess County. and issue under
his seal. and, SO modified the order Is arnrmed
JUDGE o'DRIEN'S OPINION.
Judge O'Brien IN bis opinion in the People OF the
state of New York. ex rel John A. Nichols respondent
the Board OF County Canvassers OF Onondaga county,
and Rufus T. Peck, appellant says:
The right to vote secured the citizen by the Con
stitution must exercised In the manner and subject
to the regulations lawfully peseHDed 9y 1ne y
which his Will Is expressed, and In order to make ms
comply with at least all the substantial requirements
of law The question now before us p whether thee
citizens of Onondara County who used the blOts winch
the canvassers in this have been ordered bi the
supreme Court to reject, have 50 iar neglected. 10
observe the forms and regulatllns pfcsc1oed N III
for voting at elections that their votes so cast must
be held to be void In the absence of some clear ana
positive prohibition IN the statute against counung
ouch ballots the tendency Of courts would undoubtedly
be in the direction OF effect. We confronted wit
certain clear and positive statutory provisions. which
must now be referred to in order TO ascetn whether
the court In ordering the mandamus TO Issue simply
Oleyed the mandate OF the legislature, Or mlsappre
hended It's meaning. What IS known as the Ballot
Reform Act is Chapter 2e2 Of the laws OF 1890, as
amended by Chapter 206 of the laws OF 1871. The
idea at the very foundation Of the law was secrecy
To this end II provided that ballots uniform In
size in type. in ccor and quality Of paper ana IN the
printed and distributed by the county clerk Mt the
public expense
Judge OBrien then sets forth the provisions OF the
act and after quoting that referring 10 Endorsement
Of ballots, he says
The ballots in oucson were cast in utter disregard
of this important provision OF the statute. as the l
dorement did not IN any case contain the deslglauoi