Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-01-12

1t Is to enfofss such statutes must 10
hold. whether the V~rf.sus<s act IN ques-
ton goes TO the mstts 81 Aaecte the re-
suit Of the election 90 not. (And this Is
because the statute has chosen TO say SOL
But II. as IN most cases. tine statute
simply provides that certain acts OF
things shall be done within particular
time or In q particular manner, anu ooeS
not declare that their performance Is es-
scntial 70 tho validity Of the election then
they will be regarded as mandatory
they do. and directory II they DO NOT.
affect the actual merits OF tas eiec'ion'
And at page 1876. he says:
.TJnIess a fair consideration OF the
r.,ute shows that the Legislature IN
tended compliance with the provisions III
relation TO the manner. 10 be essenuai 10
the validity OF the proceedings, II 10
10 be regarded as directory merely.
And ngain at page 1i3. he says:
.,Those provisions which affect the time
and place OF the election, ana the iega'
qualifications OF the electors are senerai,y
OF the substance OF the election. Whhe
those touching the recording and returns
of the legal votes received, and the mode
and manner of conducting the mere de-
tails of the election are directory. Inc
principle Is that irregularities, wnich uo
not tend 10 affect results are not 10 w
feat the will OF the majority: the VIII OIL
the majority Is to be respected. even "heh
lrregularly expressed"
So. as shown by McCrary, 1t IL heid mat
where judges OF the election are Hresu-
larly appointed or Lct without appoln,, !,
ment, II under color of authority or IA,
TO qualify by taking the oaths prescriped
Inv statute. or are disqualified 10 act, or
where a majority of a board OF ohicers'
required by law to be composed or three
or more persons. Join in certihcate-
none OF these Irregularities affects the
validity OF the election. They are matters
of form, and not Of substance.
REPEATEDLY APPLIED.
These principles have been repeatedly
annlied by judicial and legislative tribu-
nails. g.
In DeBerry " Nicholson, IL Am. ST.
Rep. 767. the court said:
.srhe forms which must be observed as
essential to the validity OF an election
are those only, which affect the merits.
In People v. Cook, 50 Am. Dec. 45l. the
court said:
.Tt may be safely affirmed that If the
irregularities do not deprive legal voter
of his right, or admit disqualifed per-
son 10 vote: II It casts no uncertainty on
the result. and has not been occasioneu
by the agency Of q party seeking 10
derive a benefit from it, 1t may be over
looked when the issue Is as TO which can
didate received a greater number OF votes
for a particular office at a given cleo
ton"
Judge Cooley endorses this view as fol-
lows:
This rule is an eminently proper one,
and it furnishes a very satisfactory test
as TO what Is essential. and what not,
in election laws. And where party
Contests an election on the ground OF
these or any similar irregularities, ne
ought TO aver and be able to show that
the result was affected by them. --o.
Cooleys Const. Lin. 9Th Ed) PIP. "9-
so. 90,
In LOOMS VS.. Jackson, G ". Va. 6l3.
the rule is announced as follows in re-
spect to irregularities IN elections:
at may therefore be safely afnrmeo
that no irregularity or even Iaisconduc,
on the part of the election officers. OF
other persons, will vltiate an otherwise
legal election, unless the result thereoi
has been thereby changed, or rendered
so uncertain as to mako II Impossible
To ascertain the result. A different rule
would make the manner of performing
q public duty more important IMAM ths
duty itself. -, reo
In Gilleland VS.. Schuyler, Kan, oos'
the court said:
OBJECTS OF AN ELECTION.
"The object of an election - to secure
first to the voter free, untramfneliea
vote. and second, correct record and
return OF the vote. II Is with reference
10 these two results that the rules con
Quoting elections are prescribed by lne
legislative power. But these rnles are
only means The end is the freedom and
nf eleCfl0n-
rules all mandatory and essential TO 2
valid election is TO subordinate substance
to form. the ends to the means. ar
In. Taylor We: Taylor, 10 MINI 81 iO os
cited by McCrary on Elections, at page
80, the court said: 81.
of the votes OF the citizens are rreeiy
and fairly deposited at the time am
place designated by law, the Intention
and design of the election are accomplish
cd. II Is the will of the electors thus ex-
pressed that gives the right to the once
and the failure of the officers TO perform
a mere ministerial duty in relation to the
election cannot invalidate n. pr the cree
tors had actual notice, ana there was III
fraud mistake. or surprise
The officers Of an election may be llaple
TO punishment for violation of the III
rectory provisions OF statute, but IN.
people are not 10 suffer on account VI
the default OF their agents. 49,
In People vs.. Bates, Am. Dec, 40, the
court said: ...r,
IAN election Is not vitiated, nor VIII
the poll be rejected, because OF mere II
regularities IN conducting the election
and coun<h the votes not proceedins
from wroSgful intent, nor changing inc
result. nor dspriving the voter of hls
vote. These Irregularities are inmateria.
whers they do not infringe any right
Affecting the result; or where no fraud
is committed. If the statute expressly
declares any particular act 10 be essen
tial TO the validity OF the election, OF
that its omission shall render tne eiectlon
void. all courts must so hold, whetner
the particular act goes to the merits, OF
affects the result of the elections or not
Courts will decline TO regard an action
"a void unless clearly Illegal. but VIII
give 1t effect, II possible.
A sUPREME-CoURT DECISION.
In Nelms VS.. Vaughan. 81 Va. ss5. il
was sought TO inyalidate. proceedings to
test the legality OF an election on the
ground that the oath appended TO tbs
complaint of the qualified voters, Dy
which the proceedings were inaugurated
was not subscribed by two OF the pc,
titioners. as the law plainly SAID IL sh iil
of the statute-that the complairt "shai,
be subscribed by two OF the petitioners:
was mandatory, and must be nteraliy
complied with. The. Court or Appears
held that the provision in question was
directory merely, and that compliance
with II. was MOI essential to the validity
OF the proceedings.
The court said. through Judge Lacy,
who delivered the opinion:
"The law directs the forms OF these
proceedings and there is no doubt that
the intention of. the act is that these
forms shall be substantially complied
with, but there is nothing In the act 10
indicate the intention that every depart
ure from the letter OF the act shall vitiate
the proceedings; II 20. IL would have been
manifested In the actor the act does
provide, as to the time OF filing the COM
plant, that II il Is not filed within ten
days II shall not be valid. thus plainly
providing those negative words by which
the legislative intent is made plain. We
are authorized to regard the direction as
10 form as merely directory. as there is
no lntimation that they must be done,
or all will be vitiated."
The court cites Potter's Dwarris IN
support, as follows:
"'fhat whether statement Is to be re-
garded as directory or not, Is made 10