Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1896-11-12
CANVASSINC BOARD.
An Oversight Of the Pingree
and Montpelier Election
a. Officials.
An Effort to Disfranchise the
Votes Of Those
Precincts.
The Law on the Subject
Other Slight Changes In
the Count.

Other Slight Changes In
the Count.
Through some overnight OF the eleo.
tion officials OF Montpelier aud Pingrse
.psec,nts, the ofnoisl returns were not
sisnsd By them - provided BY law.
This causes question to xsiss - 70
Whistler tho esnvassisg board should
count these precincts on account OF
their not being signed. The code OF
1896 hes tho following provision on this
subject:
Sec. 547.-Informality in returns DIS
regarded. No election returns shall be
refused by any county auditor for the
reason that the same may be returned or
delivered to him in any other than the
mauner directed in this chapter, nor
shall he refuse to include any returns
FOR ANY INFORMALLY in hold
ing an electlon OR IN MAKING RE
TURNS THEREOF; but all returns
shall be received and the votes canvassed
and q certificate given to the person
who may by such returns have the great
est numDer Of votes"
The question before the canvassinR
board was whether the documents before
them from Montpelier and Pingree pre-.
cincts were actually the official returns
OF the late election held at such pre-
clncts. If they were not then they had
10 right to count them. II they were
the Official returns it was their duty to
count them, because the statute quoted
above says they shall not "refuse TO in
clude any returns for any informally
in making returns thereof"
The returns in each case zero on the
oficial blanks in tho poll books and were
sent 70 the auditor IN the official snvel-
opss, with the key Of the ballot box on
closed q provided BY law. The returns
slowed that tho inspector, judges and
clerks had taken tho oath OF Office; aud
in other respects were oil correct except
that they had forgotten to attach their
signatures st the proper place ut the
end. The time for fling the returns
with the county auditor hes expired and
there are no other returns sent in or any
claim but what these are actually tho
returns Of the election held 1t Mont
pslier and Pingree precincts on Nov. 8,
1896. There would seem to be no justice
in disfranchisinR two whole precincts
on account Of neglect of their election
o6icisls.
ySAttached to all the poll book blanks
mt out for this election was blank
page to be filled out with the result Of
/ The vote. and forwarded to the county
eauditor in separate envelope from the
pollbook, for bis Information. These
( were made ont and signed BY the officials
lot Pingree, and by one clerk st Mont
4 spslier.l
f There 10 another point to be consider
81 in this matter, and that is that the
Law provides that the canvsssing board
shall meet ION the fifteenth day after the
close OF any election, or 40 coon as the
returns are received" The fifteenth
day after the close Of the election will
be Nov. 10, and il the returns are not all
are, the board has no power to meet and
cot sooner. It therefore follows that it
the canvassing board decide that there
is no Official returns, from Montpelier
and Plngree, then "all the returns" are
not in, and the board has no power to
meet and canvass any until Nov. 18,
before which time the returns can be
signed IN proper form.
Messrs. Roper, Woodbury. and Bartz.
who comprise the canvassing board will
no doubt do their duty as they see it in
the matter. It happens that the throw
ing out OF Plngree and Montpelier pre-
cincts would elect B. W. Fuller as sena-
tor in place OF E. M. Sanford, but that
should have no effect on the decision.
The voters Of these precincts have the
right to have their votes counted, and it
would not be justice to deprive them OF
that right on account of the neglect OF
their officials.
On Thursday morning the canvaseinR
board found that the returns from the
Third ward had been incorrectly carried
out iu the totals, the vote actually stand
ing Knsuf 81, Flint IS. This makes
Knaufs majority on the face Of the re-
turns votes.
On the face OF the returns E. NJ. San
ford has GAG votes and B. w. Fuller 635,
giving sanford majority OF II votes.
On opening the rest Of the returns the
board found that 10 Ypsilanti precinct
the returns were only signed BY tho two
Judges Of election, but not BY tho in
saector. This was laid aside to bs dis
pSAsd OF with Plngree and Montpelier,
after I'll the other returns were can