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

clare ta6 result. 11e&mp l9
purpose and duty of the eanysssing
board - 20 ASCERTAIN and declare the
apparent result OF the voting. Ali
rqaestsons are 20 be tried bstore the
coart Tor eontestsng selections or IA quo
wsfrento proceedings"
The statute provides, Laws 1891.
page 26S. section 81, in respect 70 the
township election board. that "af-
tar the ballots are counted they
shall, together with one tally sheet, lie
placed IN the ballot box. waich shall be
securely sealed III sucn manner that Il
cannot be opened without breaking
such seal. The ballot box shall then
be placed N charge Of the township or
ely clerk, but the keys OF SAID ballot
box shall 90 held by the chairman of
the board AMI the election seal IN the
hands of one OF the other inspectors Of
election"
La this condition I assume the ballot
boxes of each of these towns came to
your committee.
HAS Limited Authority.
The law rresumes that the election
boards Of these towns have done their
duty and that all the votes cast 1T such
polls are in the boxes. To overcome
this presumption there must be evi-
dence taken and then q judicial deter
m!natior made a. 10 the fact.
This your cormittee does not pos
sess the power to do. The supreme
court or Missouri, in speaking upon this
subject, uses this language: "When =
ministerial officer leaves his proper
sphere and attempts to exercise Judi.
clal functions, he is exceeding the linz
it's OF the law and guilty of usurpa-
tion." State va. Steers, Al Mo. 223.
But, 1t may DO sa:d, 10 the will Of the
people to be defeated by the oversight
or neglect OF the election board? Ger
tainly not, but your committee IS not
the tribunal IN which such mistakes
may be rectified and redress given.
The courts, and in this case the house
OF representatives as well, possess this
power, and they, 1t must be- presumed,
upon proper investigation. will re-
dress the error II one exists.
am clearly of the opinion that these
votes from Planted and Paris should
not be counted.
December IL. 1892.
Yours respectfully.
JOHN &. FIR GERALD.
A short silence followed the reading
of the opinion. which was naturally
broken by the democratic side of tine
committee. Mr.. Launiere said he
thought the opinion should be con-
strued to apply to other precincts than
the two In question; he claimed the
committee had acted judicially in sew
eral other instances where the ballots
had varied from the poll lists and re-
turns and where they had been marked
IN various ways not in line with the
marks required by the law. Mr..
Turner also stated that the committee
had acted judlcially in determining the
meaning OF all sorts of marks found on
the ballots.
Mr.. Taggart said that the substance
OF the opinion was simply that ballots
found outside of the boxes should not
be counted and that the board had no
judicial authority and that the opinion
did not IN any sense favor going back
into reconsideration Of other ballots
already canvsssed and which were no
longer IN question.
Distinguishing Marks.
Mr.. Turner-Haven't you, Mr.. Ben
jamin, thrown out lots Of ballots be-
cause there we're distinguishing marks
upon them?
Mr.. Benjamin-No, not to my knowI-
edge. Only when they were improp-
erly marked by the inspectors.
Mr.. Taggart-Any mark put upon q
ballot by an elector can not be called
distinguishing mark. The inspector
cannot change the will of the voter.
James A. Coye thought It entirely
out of place to 90 back and discuss
owo hal lDe ~, n, l.
might have been = difference of opinion.
board would yet do the
cast.
Coming to business.
In order to get some of the questions
before the committee Mr.. Launlere
moved that the action of the commit
tee in tallying q certain vote in the
third precinct of the Fifth ward be re-
scinded. The ballot In question had
been marked on the back, "voted but
not deposited. Elector unknown"
The chairman declared the motion
out OF order on the ground that that
question was not referred to in the
opinion and that il mad been canvassed
and settled upon before and further
more that the motion had not been
seconded.
Mr.. Emmons thereupon seconded
the motion and the chair again de- |
clared it out Of order. Mr.. Emmons
agreed with Mr.. Launiere that the vote
sbonld be thrown out. He said he had |
agreed to count it If 1t didn't exceed |
the poll list, and the clerks had made |
note TO that effect on their tally sheets,
60 nc proposed to stand by it.
Mr.. BENJAMIN claimed that Mr.. Goss |
had explained the discrepancy salts |
factorlly TO him and he thought IT |
should have been satisfactory TO Mr..
Emmons. Mr.. Launiere said Mr.. |
was going back on the |
opinion by undertaking to discuss what |
the marks on the ballots indicated.
Discussing the Opinion.
Mr.. Taggart said no lawyer would |
the opinion to mean that the |
board should not exercise their orGi- |
nary intelligence. In this case the |
words on the hack of the ballot them |
selves showed that they were NOT |
placed there by the elcctor but by the
inspector.
Mr. Emmons said the law in this |
case was not complied with in any
event as the elector hadn't given his |
name. there being nothing TO SNOW it. |
On the theory of being compelled 10 |
count all the votes IN the boxes. Mr.. |
.faft., q k.A go 49,.