Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-11-28
any more than their duty, or anything
Inherent from their duty ."
ONE or THE CASES CITED.

any more than their duty, or anything
different from their duty 80
ONE or THE CASES CITED.
In the present case the returns OF
votes show that 6.2S7 votes were cast
FOR Leonard Clark. OF Springfield. and
lss for Leonard Clark: 6.i2i for Lawson
Sibley. OF Springfield These votes
reckoned according TO the rule IN Strong's
case show 6.4s5 votes for Leonard Clark
and 6,5S5 votes for Lawson Sibley, so that
Lawson Sibley appears 70 be elected by
"A plurality OF fifty votes. unless the Board
OF Examiners erred In refusing TO count
Tor Leonard Clark 132 other votes cast for
J.. Clark. OF Springfield and the ques-
ton TO be determined is whether the
Board 81 Examiners erred I'm declining
so TO count these votes II IS quite usual
10 express the Christian names Of persons
both In their own signatures and by
other persons by one letter only, although
single letter rarely constitutes the
whole Christian name. The use OF an
initial letter only In legal documents,
proceedings. or votes, IS not 10 be COM
mended. because OF the danger OF un-
certainty I'm the Identification OF the per
sons, yet when no doubt OF the identity
rs created or any such doubt may be re-
moved by competent evidence the omis-
NiNA 10 fNA iOlln the ANIlHlldU name at
length, either I'm persons own signature
or in his description by another person
even If the latter knows his full nance.
though incomplete Is not necessarily cr-
roncOus.
But the Board OF Examiners cannot
receive or consider such eXtrinsic evidence
and IS confined 10 the record OF votes and
laid before IL according TO the statute.
Upon the face OF the returns the votes
possibly indicate a person whose whole
Christian name consists of the letter L.
or more probably person having a name
Of which this letter IS the initial and
which may DE either Leonard, or Lewis.
or Luther. or any other name beginning
with this letter. This is the utmost that
can be known from the returns
taken by themselves. The inference.
however plausible. that the votes cast for
II. Clark We're intended to be cast for
Leonard Clark, Is left by the returns
matter Of conjecture only. 1t is impossi-
BILE, therefore, for this court upon the re-
cord before it. TO say that the Board OF
Examiners erred In refusing TO count the
votes I'm question for Leonard Clark
To the same effect, respondent board
is advised, in Justices of the Supreme
Court Of Maine, ca Me. 596: n. q Il. Il.
l.. Elections" p. $40 ct seq
THE REAL QUESTION AT ISSUE
Further answering, the board is adj
vised that there IS no foundation on
which TO base. nor reason TO sustain, the
allegation in the amended petition, that
petitioner claims and asserts "a right,
title. authority. and immunity, guaran-
teed or conferred by the Constitution
and laws Of the United States" The is
sue joined between respondent board and
the petitioner is this: Who, by the Ger
titled abstract" on file in the office Of
the Secretary OF the Commonwealth, has
been chosen by the qualified voters of
the Tenth District to represent them in
the Fifty-ffth Congress of the United
States? And this depends on the mean
ing and construction to be placed upon
Nirglna's law in such cases made and
provided. and the construction OF these
laws; the respondent board, is advised.
involves no right, title. authority, or i'm
munity conferred upon or guaranteed to
petitioner by the Constitution and laws
Of the United States. This instrument,
Article l.. section w.. 1. enacts "the
times. places. and maner Of holding cleo
lions for . Representatives shall be
prescribed I'm each State by the Legisla-
ture thereof: and, section V, l., that
each house shall be the judge Of the
election returns and qualifications Of its
own members"
In Hamilton VS.. Dudley % Pet. 52i.
Chief-Justlce Marshall said: "rhe ju-
dicial department of every government
is the rightfu expositor Of its laws, and
emphatically OF its supreme law And.
I'm ElmenGorf, 2 Taylor. 10 Wheat 5i9:
"The judicial department Of every gov
eminent where such department exists
is the appropriate organ for constituting
the legislative acts Of that government"
Mr.. l. McLain, I'm Green VS.. McBeil, 8
Pet. 2eS. said: The decisions Of the
highest tribunals Of a state should be
considered as final by this court, not |
because the State tribunal in such case
has any power TO bind the court, but
because in the language of the court, in
shelby ct ais vs.. Guy. 2 Wheat 36l: "A
fixed and received construction by
state in its own court makes part or
the statute law" and in the words, c. /.
T9nev. in Martin VS. Waddill IS Pet. 45l:
"The sanction Of the judicial authority
OF the state IS given TO it, This
decision. made upon such question with
great deliberation and research, ought
i'm our Judgment. 70 be conclusive"
Respondent board submit themselves
10 this honorable court, ready to execute
its Judgment and obey its orders
Having fully answered. pray to be
hence dismissed with their costs.