New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-10-07
CHANGES N THE PROVISIONS.


The modification as follows
II IL ordered that the said order and the writ or
and the same hereby modiiei DE strlNhS ai
provisions therein requiring return 20 ne
, - ,, and iss,Iei under his seal and as so
modified that the same be affirmed without COSTS
The opnon of the Court of Appeals in its con
Guiding paragraph contains this language whch
il is pertinent Ia nave III view III 'o"SI"eii"e Wis
amended statement.
Tho otbor rropnd for directing the State Can
,assers to omit to canvass this return remains to be
Thc PAPERS I'm substance allege that the Board OF
County Canvasscrs illegally canvasSed the result
Of the returns from the spTc'Nrs o own canvass in
opposition to such returns, and as result gave
ninct,-two more plurality to Osborne than by the
returns of The inspectors he was entitled 70. and
resulting in an apparent plurality of fourteen
Osborne These allegations are nowhere denied IN
the papers used in opposition to the application for
a mandamus Mir. Mylol simply gives history
Of the events 10 the refusal Of the secretary to
sign and what then took place. The statement of
the canvass AS ACTUALLY made ~ attached TO the
papers opposition. but there is no explanation
the actual results as alleged IN the moving papers
The whole case stands on that return as legal
office OF tho Secretary OF state In the same way as
II il were certified by the County Clerk ana sent
from his Office and duly received and filed In the
Office Of the secretary of state the question pre-
senH itsel, as 10 the proper course IN Such case
We would then have return which was on
IT., face proper and valid. but in regard TO which
allegations were made that it was the result of
v"ssins board by Which that board departed from
it's appropriate sphere as ministerial body and
an invalid canvass. and the return on file embodied
the result of such Illegal canvass pom these
facts standing uncontradicted. we think the court
below in i,s groper branch would have the power
to command the state Canvassers to canvass With
out regard To such return.
As il coataiaed the rssuI, Of an Illegal legal and err
vassers in excess OF it, Jurisdiction. and which
thereby would alter the result of he an eesSn
As the allegations of the manner OF the making
OF the return by the County Board, the State
II another return should be duly sent to the Board
properly authenticated. and containing the result
vassers the state Board could canvass It.
We think, a result. that the order Tor the
striking out the provision requiring a return to
be certified by and to come from the County
seal and modified the order is confirmed.
All concur.
CANvAssERS RETURN TO WORK.
The Board of state Canvassers thereupon pro-
cccdcd with the final performance Of their
functions. which they had. for the purpose OF
receiving light and guidance from the opinion
of the Court OF Appeals. up to that time sus
pended.
Their plain duty seems To have been to can
vass the corrected statement from Duchess
County 1t is true that. by reason of Mr.. May
nards action. and In consequence of his adj
vice, they had not before them the actual trip
licatcs which had been mailed and afterward
taken away by the County Clerk: but they had
authenticated copies; and the decision OF the
Court of Appeals just made appraised them that
these could be properly used instead of the
others.
Nevertheless, they proceeded To canvass the
Mylod statement. which had beer Judicially
pronounced by the Supreme Court tn ne erro-
neous. and awarded the certificate of election To
Osborne. This election determined the political
ehdiacler VI the senate except SO FAR as that