The morning call., 1894-12-14

was sought by the writ of mandate was TO
compel the Board of Election Commission
ers to canvass those returns which were in
proper legal form, and to compel those
election officers who had not counted the
ballots In accordance with the require
ments OF the law to fulfill their legal duties
and make proper returns.
But they've counted these returns"
replied Judge Paterson, land have had
the election officers before them and had
them put IN prnner returns. There is no
allegation here that, Notwithstanding these
deteeis and Irregularities, the Commits
sloners could not find out and certify as
10 who had been legally elected. Under
their allegations all returns have been cor
recily authenticated on the outside of the
envelopes IN which were tally-sheetS and
poll lists. They say the names on the poll
lists don't correspond with the number of
ballots, but there is not word 10 the
effect that the humber of ballots does not
correspond with the precinct register.
That's the test and not the poll list.
Chief Justice Beatty ventured q ques-
ton as to the law, saying that ballots and
lists must cores pond. and that if there
were more ballots than names on the lists
tue surplus ballots must be destroyed.
Judge Paterson suggested that there
were two lists, and that the precinct reg
lister should be the test.
Chief Justice Beatty. however, did not
appear to agree with him, saying that as
he understood the statute the poll lists
only were meant, and that it was very
old law.
Justice de Haven asked a question;
Surprising the Election Commissioners
correspond, would they have the power
to throw out the vote OF that precinct?"
II believe not" said Paterson.
"Then il the Commissioners have OF
that power" replied Justice de Haven, 81
don't see how we have it,"
Judge Daley had lot more to say. he
spoke largely nf frauds and of the
great wrong that might be done the
people" Then in a long and ferVid
speech he cOmbated Chief Justice Beatty's
theory regarding the pOll-liSts, contending
that The precinct register held sway.
Then he contended that the Election Com
missioDers held purely ministerial func-
tons. They had no power TO summon
election officers or to examine witnesses.
They must take the properly authenti-
Gated returns and canvass them, and can
Vass nothing else.
At this point Justice Van Fleet again
asked whether he, as candidate at the
last election, would be affected by the re-
suit Of this petition.
II believe you are disQualfied to sit in
this caSe," replied Judge Paterson. If
the Secretary of State cannot announce
the results from all precincts 10 the State
tomorrow. as required by law, then the
election OF every person on the ticket is
jeopardiZed."
Miller disputed this. He said the only
question herein involved was the election
for Governor. Judge Paterson, however,
stuck to his guns, and maintained that any
delay III announcing the result of the
gubernatorial fight must affect every can
didate. 1t would be said that the returns
from San Francisco had not been sent in.
Justice Van Fleet said he didn't think his
election depended on San Francisco, but
he'd retire just the same. and retire he
did. The argument then proceeded.
Attorney Bishop argued on behalf of the
defendants he said IN his judgment the
whole point In the argument lay in
whether or not the returns canvassed by
the Election Commissioners were regular
and legal. The test of this was the sigma
ture of the election officers, and it would
be found that IN practically every case in
San Francisco the returns were properly
authenticated by the signatures of the
election officers upon the envelopes con-
tanning the ballot sheets, pOll-lists and
ballots.
Miller denied that these returns had
been properly authenticated. He said the
returns were not correct unless the tally
lists and pOll-!ists were properly signed,
and that there were sixty-six precincts in
San Francisco, involving II, 90 votes,
where there were absolutely no polI-lists,
because no signatures were attached to
them.
There was long discussion between
counsel and the bench respecting the
value of a writ of mandate compelling the
Election Commissioners TO do their speci-
fed duty. Chief Justice Beatty seemed to
dsbelieye in the value of such a writ.
Then Attorney COogan read decision of
the Illinois Supreme Court, in which il
was held that where the returns had not
been signe2 through ignorance or mad
Yertence the election officers might amend
the returns by signing the certificates any
time before the votes had been canvassed
Judge Daley, however, refused to admit
this to be the law. He said that, as the
law was mandatory, the election officers
could only amend the returns under the
direction of the court. He maintained
that the court could compel the election
officers to amend their returns, and that it
was proper for the court to point out what
the law was aud what the duty of election
officers was under It.
A long discussion followed as to whether
the poll lists were part of the returns, fter
which justices Garoutte, Beatty, McFar-
land and De Haven said they were pre-
pared TO rule on the demurrer at once, if
ii were conceded that the tally lists had
been By now properly authen ticated and
certified to under the direction OF the Elec-
tion Commissioners.
Election Commissioners Ebert and Cres-
we'll said all the tally sheets had been
signed, and this was conceded by Attorney
Miller, but the later would not give way as
10 the poll lists. Then there was some
more argument, after which the court took
the demurrer under advsement, promising
to render decision at 10 O'Clock this morn
ing.
Altogether it was vague, uncertain,
desultory Kind of proceeding, unlike
court argument.
1t is generally believed by the Democrats
that the court will sustain the demurrer,
and that the followers of Estee will have
TO seek their relief before the Legislature.
ELECTION COMMISSIONERS.
They Must Hurry Their Work or
There Will Be Trouble.
The Election Commissioners met yes