The morning call., 1893-03-05
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Can He Administer an
Oath Legally?
A Question That Has Been Raised
Before Judge DaingerfieId in
Perjury Case.

Judge Ddingerfeld opened his ju dicial
eyes yesterday with no little surprise at the
development of new feature in the per-
jury case of George Waite.
The accused was one OF those arrested for
Illegal registration last fall, and, less for
tunate than his fellows, was obliged to
stand trial. The jury at the first hearing
of the case disagreed, but on the second
trial verdict of guilty as charged was re-
turned by tue jury.
Yesterday was set for the day of sentence,
but the proceedings were Unexpectedly in
terrupted by the defendants attorney,
Augustus TiideD. moving for an arrest of
judgment on the ground that the Registrar
had no authority to appoint deputy with
power TO administer oaths. and therefore
that Waite was not sworn by such officer as
contemplated by the statute, which requires
that the oath should be administered by a
competent tribunal. officer or person."
The argument of counsel was to the ef-
feet that, under the election act of March
IS, 1878, the Registrar superseded the
County Clerk OF San Francisco in authority
relative to the registration of voters, and
divested the first-named officer of all power
in this respect.
Prior to that enactment 1t was the duty
of the Couty Clerk to keep a great register
aud 10 enter therein the names of all appi-
csnts on their showing by affidavit that
they were qualified TO become voters
The code, argued MIR. Tilden, imposed
upon the County Clerk no further duty than
to receive aud record affidavits of qualifica-
tions, but, while he might exercise the
power OF administering an oath, he was not
directed to do so and. therefore, had no
authority to appoint deputy for that pur-
pose.
II annliad IN adn,inietar on oath ba oouId
not refuse to render his services in that
regard but should stress of business rem
der it impossible for him 10 perform that
function he could not justify himself under
any provision OF the code, In appointing an
assistant for the purpose.
1t was admitted that the Registrar had
the privilege Of appointing one clerk and
other clerical assistance, but there his ap-
pointing power rested. The contention of
the District Attorney that the terms "clerk"
and deputy" 10 this sense, were synony-
nous was not admitted by the defendants
attorney, aud was heatedly argued.
The proposed affiant or voter applying
for registration should have been directed
to other officers exercising that power The
affidavit can be taken by any competent
official empowered to administer an oath, as
a notary public.
The Registrars powers being no greater
than those Of the clerk, he had no more
authority to appoint deputy than had the
latter, 1t not being bis duty to administer
oaths.
The District Attorney, In q short argu-
ment. claimed that any officer is vested with
authority to appoint deputy by the gen.
eral law IL in his discretion such is neces-
sary.
Mr.. Tilden claimed that tho Registrar,
under the election law, was not granted the
privileges of appointing deputy any more
than Judge of the Superior Court had to
appoint such a subordinate officer.
The motion was taken under advisement
until next Saturday.