New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-03-18

7
made up by 1t in correct arthmeticol manner
from the various official returns before them IL
was held also that no county board has authority
10 transmit with their official returns any paper
attacking the validity Of the election, and that
if such paper is so transmitted the State Board
has no power 10 consider IT.. In this case, there
fore. the Republicans won a complete victery
THE sHERwooD.wALKER DECISION.
And it would seem az il these decisions carried
with them the inevitable result Of vindcatlng the
Republican position in each Of the other cases. en-
cent that of the XXVth District. SO indeed IL
did in the case Of the XVIII District, where the
court gave the Republicans the full relief they
sourht. But in the case Of the NAVIIth District.
where the Democratic county cdnvasscrs had mide
a statement OF the returns which elected the ne
publican candidate by 1862 votes. and had ac-
compancd this statement with a resolution de-
claring that the Republican candidate was IN
eligible. and that the only valid votes cast were
those given TO tie Democratic candidate, the
court. while admitting that the State canvassers
act ministcrially, and have no Jurlsdctloh 10 ~
outside OF tie returns OF the county canvassers Or
70 institute an INQUIRY as TO the eligibility of the
candidates vote for and that they are without
authority 70 determine whether minority cahdl-
date is elected if the majority candidate appears
10 be INELIGIBLE: while admitting, too, that the
county board has no right to accompany l's state
ment of figures with any resolution or o''ei
paper attacking the figures, or expressing any
opinion as to the eligibility CT the candidates. ana
while distinctly declaring that the State Board
being without jurisdiction TO inquire into cahoi
dates eligibility, can have Therefore, no oiici'N
act to perform in reference uieretn' "hilc cN
pressing these views. the court. dividing accoIuihs
70 noltics Judges Finch and Andrews dissenting,
at foot 1p
candidate was ineligible, and that they would not
employ their power to assist him Ill Accomplishing
what was in fact a wrong. The court agreed INA.
The Senate and the Senate only was the Judge OF
thc candidates eligibility but that, since he had
como leforc them asking their authority IN MS
bebalf il was right that they should ascertain
4 whether as matter OF TACT, nc was
eligible. and being satisfied that he was nov, IL
was not right that they should allow MN 10
make use of their judicial powers The sense OF
all this was that the State Board could no nothing
whatever except give Mr.. Sherwood 'he I"Pu'-
lican candidate certificate OF election, I'aNlns
the question of his eligibility 10 the Hehate '"'
as he was not eligible, the court would not COM
mand the State Board to do us ou'S' no"-
ever clear that duty was.
JUDGE F1vCHs SHARP DISSENT
Judge Finch wrote the dissenting opinion ID
msioritys opinion which held that the State Board
conll 40 nothing but give Mr. Sherwood his GER
tifcate. lie dis~en;cd from that part which heli
that il was not the courts duty to command tlc
Stare Board to do that which II was
compeled 10 admit was the State Boards
dutv He suggested that Mr.. Sherwood =
nosition miaht well he that OF a man VINO
went 70 the court to compel count OF the votes
cast for him, ANA the court told him 10 coui'
not have it, because he was ineligible then ne
went 20 the Senate for his seat. and the senate
told him that. although he was eligible, lie "ouId
not have the seat because the votes hal not n'ch
counted Judge Finch insisted that Mr. Shcr"ool /
was not called upon TO show that he was ch'l'Ieo
70 his seat since he was not asking the court
"a award him that. He was called upon 10 prove
his right TO no more than he demanded, Whicn
,xas that the votes should he counted
as they were cast and the result properly ccr''.
fed And that. said Judge Finch, is the right OF
,, ona overv citizen. To deny Mr.. Sherwood
that right because he in fact ineligible was
20 hog the question: no court could forcs'aI the
Indictment Of the Senate that body might thnk
that Sherwood was eligible If So then eligible ne
was no matter what this court thought Inc
pretence that it not right for tne court 10
grant Sherwood the relief he sought, because II
would enable him TO accomplish wrong, "uS
false pretencc and wholly at variance WIN the
courts decisions In an earlier case the court ia"
held that when the act the doing oI which II
sought 70 be compelled by mandamus Is the maj
thing and If done, gives to the rclator All '"'V
he seeks proximately or ultimately. then uie que7-
ton whether he is entitled to have that oone
NAV be inquired into, p'' WIN Wv .,
, TO be done is but step toward the hhnI r'e"''
and ;s lint the means Of setting in motion a
i,lo flp ~
final relief claimed. then the inferior officer or
.r;hural NAV not inquire whether there exists
tho rirht 70 that final relief, and can only ASK
h,hor ,bc rclator shows a right 10 have the
; act done which is sought from him or H. Words
cou,d not be put together said Judge fln@h'
,hicb more complctely covered the case AT bar
THE PEOPLE. ARE THE PLAINTIFFS
As 10 The REALTORS right there could DE no
doubt of it, but if there were. II should MAKE no
difference Have the people no rights l"'N'
said the Judge eloquently, are the real PAIN
. tiHs the reator is only their informant
!, 10 the sovereign who comes to our bar, TO inns
conrt which it created aud can destroy win n"'
- in hand but with gravity we wouId pe'''r "o.
oyerlooll and demands OF us that we co'i'"""
. Gro nuhIic officers who hold a public office upon
a public trust, 10 perform clear puo"c ""'N ;"
: ros,oct n a matter of vital importance to the
safety and purity Of our INSTITUTIONS WHICH ''eN
threaten not to perform IN lawful way
, and we answer that the informant, VINO set '''
>, pcople in motion, claims to have private inter
!, c+t of his own, and since we are sa1sieu Una
. he has none, we deem it our duty 10 urn 'i'
;, people out of court and leave unlathfui servants
c 70 violate the public law with IMMUNITY we say
70 rhe people, we think you are right ana the c'ii
:, vassers wrong, bat we cannot approve oi Sou'
= relator and in order to defeat MN we q'"e'
h your writ and turn you out Oh court i"'" W."
ri bad law, in the opinion of Judge Finch ana u'
: , in order Ia make il had been required IL
- do violence 10 scores of former decisions ~ II
~ difficult 70 see what could be added to this mas
tcrlv illumination of the courts illogcai ana eN
! traordnary conclusion. To admit that he COMFY p