Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1896-12-10

49, ,."i' a"Journeu until Jne Zltn Gay
OF november, 1896. On which day, as
well as on the day following all the
questions raised wore fully and ably
argued by counsel for both sides.
on TINS motion to quash the answer,
therefore, this case is now broadly
before US, on all questions raised in its
progress, upon no one of which has apy
| decision been heretofore rendered by a
majority Of this court.
We do not think that the objections
raised to the suiliciency Of the relatora'
case, upon the face OF the record, have
been Sustained. The decision, there
fore, will be based upon the merits.
The issues are broad, pregnant with
public interests and too far-reaching
In results to have the case determined
| or stay the arm OF the law upon fine
| technical points or subtle theories.
| Inc board OF CANVASS OF Kent county
| met ON Thursday, the 9Th day Of
November, 1896, at Dover for the per-
iormance OF public duty enjoinod upon
| ,tby law; which duty was the ascer-
-,ainment OF the state of the election
held 10 that county on Tuesday, the
said ID day of November
AZ ~ averred by the REALTORS that the
said board of canvas did not perform
that duty, and that a writ of per-
| ehptory mandamus should issue to
compel such performance.
The mode of ascertainment of the
state OF the election is prescribed by
section Is Of chapter Is OF the Revised
Code in this language. "The said
board of canvass shall publicly, in the
| presence Of such electors of the county
as snail think proper to be- present,
ascertain the state of the election
throughout the county. by calculating
the aggregate amount of all the votes
Tor each Office that shall have been
given Id all the hundreds of tho county,
Tor every person voted for for such
| Office. -
The state OF the election was to be
| ascertaipad only from the certificates
OF election made and signed by ths in
| spector and judges OF each election dis
triet; the production of which for that
| purpose il fully provided for by the
law. Tho board had no right to con
sider the vote other than as SGT forth
in the certificates.
| the answer of the respondents dis
tinctly admits that the board did not
| canvass the aggregate amount of all the
votes given in all the hundreds Of the
county, as required 10y the express
| terms of the statute; but only counted
and certified the votes of eight Of the
| Ia districts for which certificates had
been returned.
Seven of the respondents with Sheriff
Shaw rendered themselves ready TO
perform their duty under the order of
this court The remaining nine Of
the respondents defended their proceed
inga as just and right.
They claim in their answer that the
refusal to count the votes of the six
rejected election districts, was justified
for the following reasons: That at the
elaction3 in said district voters as
sistants were selected from tho Union
Republican party, which was not one
OF the two principal political partieo
named by the law; that ono Of the
| judges OF the Eastern election district
of Duck Creek hundred, who was a
member OF the Union Republican party,
| refused to permit the voters assistant
selected by the majority of the judges
| of said district to perform bis duties
as such officer, declaring that if he was
not allowed to select the voters' as
sistant no election should be held; that
there would be riot and bloodshed.
That one of the clerks, a member of
the same party, refused to deliver the
ballots, as he said, under the in
struction of his judge. That at the
polling place in the said district said
threats were repeated by snndry other
members of the Union Republican
party, black and white. That said clork
had concealed upon bis person during
the day loaded pistol. That the
voters assistants were so selected, for
the purpose OF communicating by some
sign or signal agreed upon to the
4 workers Of the Union Republican party
outside of the election room, how the
persona with whom they had corruptly
contracted did vote. That such cor
rupt understandings were carried out
by said voters assistants; whereby
bribery prevailed TO such extent as to
defeat the will Of the people. That
they were informed by the attorney
general of tho State of Delaware, by
letter, that failure to select yoters'
assistants from the Republican party in
any election district, would he such a
violation Of election laws of this State
as to constitute sufficient grounds for
the throwing out of the vote of every
hundred and election district where
the selection was not thus made. {"
That there were no returns from West
Dover hundred, an the majority of the
election officers refused tu make and
sign certificates of the results of the
election because the open and notorious
corruption, bribery and fraud practiced
at the polling place rendered it i'm
possible to ascertain the popular will
in that hundred.
That ballot boxes were opened during
the progress of the election, contrary
to law. That the bribery and cor
ruption, practieed in sail hundreds on
election day wore SO omen and notorious
as to evidence that the results of the
eleution were the direct fruits of whGle-
sale fraud and corruption.
That the foregoing violations of law
were the outcome of conspiracy on
the part of certain members of the
Union Republican party to suppress
the will of the people of the county.
That the said nine respondents did
not sign certificates of the results of
such corrupt and fraudulent elections,
for tine reason, that 1t would be giving
their sanction and support to such dis
reputable agencies; and for this further
reason, that it did no. appear from
tho readpg of tho returns from said
election districts that they we're signed
by majority of the officers of election
Of the respective districts, or by a
majority of them; but that they did
not examine said certificates, and
| ounn,,t aay whpthar thay wara mr. wara