New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-01-04
BALLOT LAW AMENDMENT.
SENATOR sAxroS SHOWS THE NEED OF IT.
POINTING OFT THE DANGEROUS ,oNsEoUENCFS
OF THE RECENT CONSTRUCTION OF THE
LAW Ely THE COURT OF APPEALS


CLYDE n y Dec o-Ssnator Charles T. saxtOn, OF
the XXVIIth District who lives here WIS the IN
PRODUCER Of the Ballot Reform law Of loo, ana OF uc
amendments made 10 it in 1891. ~ is well known
Governor Hill would not sign the original Ans'ra'h
Ballot law, introduced by Mr.. saXion ard insisted
! upon its modification in many Important particulars
before he would sign II. The chief OF the harmful
! amendments made under Governor Hills demand was
that respecting the pascr ballot but there were
others which have proved nenry as bad n thn one
Mr. Saxton will present TO the Legislature on Tues
day, as soon as It meets, bill sweeping away All
the injurious features added TO the bill by Governor
Ill., the paster ballot among others. His new law
WILL OF course provide FOR the Australian blanket
ballot.
Senator Saxton has been much Interested. naturally,
in the Interpretation OF the present BalotReform Law
given by the Court Of Appeals last week ie' IiRc
every other Republican, bows to the decision OF the
| Court OF Appeals. Nevertheless. he is surprised al
the reading of the law in some particulars bv the me
beIs OF that court. 1t differs fr'm his own a,
member of the Legislature which passed the ACTS ana
had so much to do with their composition Review
Ing the action OF TIE Court OF Appeals upon all II the
cases, Mr.. SaXton said today:
There seems 10 be a vast amount OF ignorance AS
TO what the Court of Appeals really decided III the
contested election The only deciding any I'm
uortant question In which all the Judges concur Is the
Derby case The principle decided in that case is the one
for which the Republicans have all along conended ana
which, if admitted from the start would have saved
all controversy. 1t is stated in the opinion Of judge
Gray as follows 49,
W. tbink TOO that the gravity question which r.
la to the functions OF the state Board
of Canyassee its determination by us appropriate
At this time Importance Is OF the highest order lhefe
ought not any divergence OF opinion ana the'e
can not be what Is the nature OF those functions
and duties what the limit Of those powers NO JUG
ment proceeds direct methods OF fea'ohhs
and which guides itec written law OF the state
=, Tho
Boards OF Canvasscrs IS purely mi serial one Upon
them by statute The obligation to MINI precise
functions They charged BY the statute with ao'o
Lutte and certain The plain reading OF the words
q, ,ha law must be followed that inevitably forbds
us TO entertain opinion that any Judicial powers are
vested in the Boards Of CdnNasserS lheir members oo
yene under the determine upon the statements
which they must make from the statements returned o
the Board, Of Canvassers what persons have bc
by the greatest number Of votes elected TO once
The statements returned by the county boards cannot
lawfully contain anything save ha whole hnhror {"
votes given in and district the names Of tho
candidates number Of the votes given TO cah
The view, we have expressed in this opinion concern
ing the functions OF bosd- OF canVas'c> le'a 10 '
conclusion this that the state Board was "'h'''
any power TO regard act anything before th'h
in rotation 10 tie election for Senator in tie ANNn
Senatorial District except those certified statements when
the county boards directed by the statute to max"
If As Judge Gray says. boards Of canvassers nave
only ministerial and not judicial powers ana II ''r
upon anything before 1T except the certified st"tc-
uents from the County Canvasscrs. then cernfcal'S
shm,d have been issued to Mr.. sherwood ana MI
Peck the Republican senators elect, TO "hom were
denied certificates Of election by the state Eoard OF
Canvasscrs: and the certificate held BY Osoorhc Is
entirely opposed to the law ana the la''S ihc'o u
no escape from this conclusion.
"Why does Osborne gel his certificate Becaiac the
PICARD OF Canvassers Of Duchess Comfy assumed
iudical functions and adludeed. In direct vio'auoh
Of law that certain votes void. The courts dc
cIded thai these rejected ballots Soud lie counted bv
The Board Of CaDya'sCrs. End mt new c''uI'i'c
should lie issued which would declare the true result
cf the canvass. But by the aid OF partisan Judges
and by means Of jugelery which bo?dered closely on
crime the true returns secreted ard did not aD
pear before state Board oi Canvass"rs Those re-
Turns had been hndered and delayed by methods
which 70 say the least were very questionable, ana
which were aided by certain members OF the SmH
Board OF Canvassers.
But what did the Court Of Appeals decide with
reference 10 this matter simply this That The
certificate Of signed by Myiod was regular on
lis face because Ii not Indispensable uiit such
certificate should be signed BE- the County Clerk or
his deputy But the Court Of Appeals, by Judge
peckhain who wrote opinion cOncurTed In bv all
says that the facts forth IN the paper which are
uncontt-,dicted show that the Mylod certificate con
tans the result Of Illegal aud erroneous canVaSN'
Notwithstanding this. TIE state EOard Of tanNn'refs
taking advantage o: ~at portion Of the decision mold
ing that the MylOd certificate !, sufficient IN ioI ana
without giving III opportunity 70 have the correct
certificate presented Immediately grants certificate
TO Osborne who was not elected By the people This
Is In direct violation not only Of the spirit Of the
decisiCn IN that particular case. but also OF the Unc
pie laid down by Judge Gray in the Derby case; be
cau,c the Nylod certificate is the result Of judicial
power illegally exercised by the Dutchcss County
Board Of Canvassers
fral hn and udr / bv
standard The court decided That Sherwood VA, in
eligible. But that was not the question rally be
fore them. That question was not whether Sherwood
eligible, but whether the state Board q can
vasscrs had jurisdiction ~ d'clc That matter. JudSr
Gray expressing the opinion OF the whole court, had
said That the Beard had such power. The court
practically RENTED the who,c mater 10 the Senate,
where under the Constitution II properly belongs,
because In such u the Senate and not the court
must decide that question. I think the Senate would
have been morally bound to adopt the opinion Of the
highest court upon tins question Of eligibility, but
thai does not change the real issue The state Board
OF Canyasscrs was bound TO take the certificates from
the county canvasscrs. and could not 60 behind tie
Eretuns. They bound by the decision Of thc
court In these very Notwithstanding the opinion
Of the court this question Of clgibhty-wi'ch Is
only an opinion, and has no binding force as a
udgment-t count the votes certified rs having been
cast for sherwood and lenve the ultimate decision 10
the Senate which is the only tribunal having any
Jurisdiction whatever Instead oi ih"t. they aijudg'd
the votes cast for Sherwood 70 be void, and refused
him the certificate.
"The decision In the Peck Is the only ono that
is really surprising / think the court should nave
clearly held in the Sherwood that the state Board
could not disregard the vote east for Sherwood and
thus decide the whole matter but the decision IL
stands properly interpreted, does not change the law
AS 1t has been commonly understood. But the de-
csion in the Peck IS, sure great surprise
| TO lawyers and laymen alike. The decision is not
| founded any provision of the new Ballot law. IL
does not pretend to decide that the 1000 and odd
transDosed ballots in Onondaga County void
under the provisions Of Sections 81 and 30 Of the bal
lot law as amended last winter There Is no claim
anywhere that the ballots declared void marked