The record-union., 1894-12-14
THE CONTEST FOR GOVERNOR,
CORNWALLS PETITION ARGUED
IN THE SUPREME COURT.
The Decision of the Justices Reserved
Until 10 O'Clock This
Morning.
special to the REcoRp-Ux1oS.

Special 10 the RECoRD-UNIoN.
SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. I3.-The hall of
the State supreme Court was crowded
tins morning when the GuDeruatoriaI
election contest case came on for hearing
EX-Justice Van Il. Paterson and Joseph
Nougess appeared as the principal attor-
Eovs for the Board Of Election Commits
Sioners, defendants, though in reality
they represent the interests of BudG.
George A. Knight and several other law
yers appeared in behalf of the petitioner,
Chairman Cornwall of the Repu ublican
Stale Central Committee.
Chief Justice Beatty and Justices De
Haven, Harrison, Van Fleet Garoutte
and Mcfarland were on the bench. JUS
hfiiaft IH1,1ltzgetald HI having been a candidate
rendsrad interested III the decision to be
Goniiseis iisNdlS ID. not sit.
tempted to secure delay OF -tnBStee.- at
ings, but were unsuccessful.
Attorney Paterson, on behalf of the
| defendants, then opened his argument.
| He confined himself exclusively to the
| legal questions involved, as to whether
| the petition alleged facts sufficient to war
rant the issuance of citation to the
| Board of Election Commissioners TO
come before the court and defend their
official acts. He argued that petitioner
Cornwall was not the real party in inter-
est, inasmuch as the statute requires that
an action of this kind must be brought
by the party who is in jured. Cornwall,
he declared, could not be injured by the
election OF Budd. lie declared, too, that
the petition asked the COURT to do indi-
rectly what it could not do directly-that
is hear contest over the election OF
Governor, which can only be heard by
the Legislature
Ex-Judge Daily of Ventura, arguing for
1
sought by the writ of mandate was to
compel the Board of Election to canvass
those returns which were in proper legal
| form, and to compel precinct election
officers to fulfill their legal duties and
make proper returns.
Interrupting him, Justice De Haven
said 1.-THE question, as l. understand il,
| is whether there We're legal returns to
| canvass, and what returns were legal"
! Having been Strengthened out on this
point, Daily declared that the Election
| Commissioners could not canvass any
returns not authenticated as the law re-
| qures, and that their efforts to correct
| such returns by citing the election ofli-
GERS to appear and complete their work
was not according to law.
Having been Strengthened out on this
point, DAILY declared that the Election
| Commissioners would not CANVASS any
1 returns not authenticated as the law re-
| QuIr6S, ana LDdG LH6lr efforts TO correct
| such returns by citing the election Off
! GERS to appear and complete their work
was not according to law.
DAILY asked that the Election Commits
| siouers be instructed to canvass the re-
turns properly authenticated, and that
| the Court direct them what course tc
| follow with the returns not properly
| authenticated.
A decision of the Illinois Supreme
Court was read, in which it was kefd that
where returns had not been signed,
| through ignorance or inadvertence, cleo
Iion officers might amend the returns by
| signing certificates any time before the
| vote was canYassed.
| The petitioners refused to concede tha
this was law, but Justice Beatty init
mated that such could be considered gooG
law.
Long and tedious arguments then fol
lowed, and a motion to dismiss the petit
ton was made.
| Justices De Haven and Garoutte sale
that If the returns had been properly
certified TO before the canvass OF tht
votes was finished, they were willing K
grant the motion now.
The decision of the Court was reserved
however, until 10 o'clock tomorrow
morning.
1t is the general belief that the Cour
will refuse to issue the citation petitioneC
|