Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1896-12-03

| 1922 "ttoiuoJ -Hbueiht VI tDb 6tAIe Oh
| delaware, and dated November Cd,
1896, that failure in any election dis.
| trict to select one of the voters assist
ants from the members Of the Republi.
can party, as in tho case of each of the
districts, above named, would be such
| violation of the election laws OF this
State as would constitute sufficient
grounda for the throwing out OF the
vote OF every hundred or election dis.
trict where the selection was not thus
made copy of which is hereto at.
tached and made part Of this return.
The letter is as follows:
| In answer to your question, viz |;
| From which two of the several politi-
cal parties now in this State shall the
voters assistants, who are TO serve at
the election TO be held on Tuesday, the
20 inst, be seiectodg' | will state the.
following as my Interpretation of the
| law as applicable to the facts. The
statute provides that the inspectors
| ana Judges OF each hundred or cleo
tlon district shall select an honest and
capable man from each of the two prin-
cipal political parties to serve as voters
assistants, and as the Democratic and
kepubiican parties are the two princi
pal poliflcal parties the selection must
De made from them; and moreover. in.
asmuch as what is known as the Regu-
Jar Republican party, in contfadistinc
ton to the Union Republican party in
TINS state has been and Is recognized
by the national Republican committee
OF the Republican party as the repre-
sentative OF that party 10 this State,
and also by the clerks of the peace Of
the several counties of the State, the
selection must be maze from that no
litical party and from the Democratic
party. Otherwise there would be stuff.
ciont grounds for the throwing out the
vote of every hundred and election dis.
trict where the selection was not thus
made. Very truly yours,
Robert @. White,
Attorney General
The answer alleges more fraud and
asserts that the ballot. boxes In some
districts were opened during the prog
ress OF the election. 1t also asserts
that these violations of law were the
result of conspiracy entered into bv
the members of the Union Republican
party previous to the election to &C.
fraud the will of the people and that
the respondents did rot sign such re-.
turns because to do so would have been
to give their sanction to such methods.
1t is admitted that Thomas MrCoy.
one of the respondents is a duly
elected inspector, but deny that the
others are The vote tabula.ed by the
Democratic majority of the board of
canvass is then gwen and these show
the Democratic candidates to be elected
and il is so claimed. 1t is claimed
that no returns for West Dover hundred
wore ever received, and that the board
could not therefore canvass the vote as
require by law. 1t is denied that the
sheriff remained continuously as the
presiding officer Of the board of canvass
at Its original meeting, or that the per-
sons named constituted board of can.
vass. 1t is claimed that the respopd.
ents canvassud all of the hundreds in
which elections were legally held; and
also that they refused TO count the
other votes Oh account of fraud, and
also that the certificates were properly
signed. 1t is also claimed that certifi.
Gates OF election were mado out and
signed. 1t is also claimed that the
writ of alternative mandamus was not
directed to the proper parties, as il was
directed to the sheriff and inspectors
and not to the sheriff and members of
w pouiu Vi ChuNdbby IluL IDa WIFI
did not follow the petition; that no
notice has been sent to other persons
who were candidates; that the board
having met and performed all of it's
duties is functus oflicio as inspectors
and as board Of canvass.
Messrs. Hayes and Ward submitted
motion to quash the answer of the
Democratic inspectors, and upon this
motion argument was heard. 1t CON
tinued all day, and then court adj
iourned until Friday morning.
Dover, Nov 2s.-When court recon.
yened yesterday afternoon Walter II.
Hayes OF counsel for the REALTORS, re-
sumed his argument. He cited various
authorities in support Of his contention
that the answer of the RESPONDENTS
should be quasheGl, commencing with
case from Sixteenth Kansas - one
similar, he said. to that at the bar.
but in which the ballot box was stuffed |
with 100 votes, and whcre writ of
mandamus was issued to compel the
canvassing board to make a proper re.
turn. In this issue the election Off
Gals were asserted to have been dere-
lict in that they canvassed d part in.
stead of all the RETURNS Any candi.
date, Mr.. Hayes claimed, Is as much
Justified in compelling the board
to canvass all the returns as any
part thereof. 1t is a common
error for canvassing boards to
over estimate their powers. They
must tako the returns as presented from 4
the various voting precincts, add them |
and declare the apparent result. Now
the court says IN the case quoted that |
q part performance on the part Of the |
board was no performance at all; that |
IT was altogether ministerial duty
that they were required to perform and |
not Il judicial duty.
In the case of Knight vs. Ferris, in |
which the decision was rendered by |
Ohief Justice Comegys, where the |
issue was as to who had been elected
assessor, and in which case 1T was |
sought 10 shuw that after the votes |
wern cast the board Of canvass had no |
right to declare who was chosen to a |
certain Office, it was decided that tho |
board was simply required 10 decide az
to the faco of the returns as shown by |
tho certificates.
Judge Gruhh hero interrupted Mr..
Hayes with the remark that it was n |
singular coincidence that the case cited
abolished the little" elections while
tho cause at issue seemed TO have re-
vived it.
MIR. Hayes said that he agreed with
the court in that respect
Mr.. Hayes continued his argument.
quoting from the American Euryclo.
IL.