Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1892-12-13

and then by IA oversight on the part OF
toe board. not returned 60 the boxes
rnca questions Of fact are exeluslyeiy
Tor tie courts. IN proper proceedings,
and Are not matters which your con-
mitiee have any authority 10 hear or
cetermlne.
The supreme court OF Massae asetts,
in the case Of Luce We. Msyn4ws is
Gray. 81. "a speaking OF the powers VI
4 cansas.lDz board, say;
they are lot made a judicial tribu-
nal nor authorized 10 decide upon the
validity OF the election IN any other
mote than by an examination OF The
returns made 10 them according 10 law.
They are not required or sashorlzed 10
hear witnesses or weigh evidence. They
have no power 10 send for persons or
papers. IL one result appears upon the
returns and another Is me real truth OF
the case, they eau only act upon the
former"
TINS rule, II one result appears upon
the returns and another - tie real
truth of the case, you can only act
upon the former. is affirmed by Justice
Gray. now OF the United States su-
prefne court, then of the supreme court
vs.. Board, l26 Mass. 2sI.
Calling attention again to the IAN
guags OF the statutes:
You are Ito open the ballot boxes
make a recount thereof,
make correct and full returns.
showing the whole Number II votes
''reiufn tho ballots to The respective
boxes
Mest Not Act JudieiAiiy.
You arr simply TO ascertain the whole
number of ballots there are, now, at
the time you are making the recount,ln
the boxes and for whom cast. This num-
Ter must be the result of pure IN
flexible, mathematical calculation.
You have no discretion whatever In
the matter. When you have done this
and made your report, you have per-
formed your whole duty. anything less
would not suffice, anything more would
be an inexcusable usurpation of au-
thority on your part.
In this connection permit mo to call
your attention 81 the decision OF our
own supreme court giving = construc-
ton IT, act No. 293 OF the session laws
of 1887. You will recollect this act
provides for = recount before y COM
mittee IN the probate court, Of the
ballots cast NJ election. The duty i'm
posed Dy this act upon such committee
rs to the recount OF the ballot is In sub
stantially the same language ~ that
used III this section under which you
ay6 now acting. 1t is this. ''Upon the
div and place specified in the order
the boxes snail be brought before the
board of examiners and opened,
aud the ballots therein shall be counted
by said board, and said board
snail make = statement In writing of
the result Of said count. After
the ballots are counted they shall be
placed back In the boxes and sealed up
by said board"
Tho court, Justice Champlin speak
ing for 1t. says:
I'VE think IL plain that the
10 confined solely
and exclusively to ascertalning
the number of ballots which are
contained In the ballot boxes for the
person whom the canvassers have
declared elected and the opposing
The act does not contem.
plate that tine board of examiners shall
take testimony relative to any fraud
by the board of inspectors
or others, but the duties prescribed are
purely ministerial and confined as
above stated to . recount of the bal
lots" (Andrews vs. Judge of Probate,
"A Mich, 2S5.
supreme Court Decisions.
This decision but reaffirms the prin.
cipie announced In an earlier decision
made by the same court (Attorney
General vs.. CAnvassers, "a Mich, GIL,
where Chief Justice Campbell speaking
for the court says:
1.-The law imposes upon them (the
board) the single and spe-
cific duty of canvassing the votes certl-
fed by the election officers, and ceru-
fying the number Of votes cast.
They are not . judicial nor quasi
judicial body. They are not q per-
nanent body with administrative func-
tons. They are created for single
occasion and for . single object.
They have no means gwen then
to inquire, and no right 10 inquire. be-
yond the returns of the local boards.
They have no rgnt to raise outside
issues to decide themselves or to ask
us to decide. When they have figured
up the returns exactly as handed over
to them they nave completed their
task and exhausted their power"
The same court In 1890 again says:
ssThe duty of board OF canvassers
is purely clerical" Coll Va. Canvass
ers, So Mich, $40.
And reati,rms this in April, 1892, in
the case OF McQusce VS.. Ferguson. 81
v. W. r., 1872: Their duties are
purely ministerial and clerical.
In the case OF Attorney General vs..
Barstow, Wisconsin, 7i9, the su-
preme court of Wisconsin say
that the canvssssng officers ''are
to add up and certify by calculs-
ton the number of votes given for
any Office; they have no discretion to
hear and take proof as to frauds, even
If morally certain that monstrous
frauds have been perpetrsted." In
the case of Morgan Va. Quaekenbush,
% Barb. y, the Supreme court of New
York held "that IL was the duty OF the
csrvsssIug board 10 canvass the re-
turns and declare the result. and that
this was = purely ministerial act. They
are lndges OF nothing and not allowed
To receive evidence Of anything outside
OF the returns themselves"
Are rinssseriei onseers
This proposition, that canvsssIng
and returning judges are minis
ferisi cfiicers possessing no discretion
airy power, has been settled by the SUI
prene court IA nesrly every state. Nc
rarv on Electfous third edition. page