The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-12-23

ham county shove some !. 80 votes cast
FOR Jacob Yost." The question was.
could the board. whose powers are con-
ccdcd 20 be p.rely ministerial. count
this return for j. Yost The Supreme
Courts OF Massachusetts and Maine han
decided unanimously In cases exacty
analogous that returning board had no
such power ln one OF these cases Some
Of the votes had been returned TOT l..
and some for Leonard smith. Inc
court held that the votes must be counted
IS cas, for two different persons, not io'
the same person.
The Board considered themselves CON
froilcd BIZ those and like Qualifications
and. ar without the vote Of Bucking-
ham Yosi.vas defeated. declared the "niy
altering tfve-that FLOOD was elected.
BEFORE the Board took this action Mr..
Yoet nlod q paper. which had been pre-
rarod and siened ~ the CLERK or BUCK
iucham County Court stating tnht ."e
returns OF the vote IN that county LOT
-ronber OF Congress. which had been
csrtifod bv the County Election commits
si1uCrs was erroneous. ano staans "nit
The vote was as shown by the poh-no'Ns.
To IL was attached a certificate signed
bv tho Election Commissioners that tnis
statement Of the clerk was correct as
they remembered the facts
The Board the Governor dissenting as
shown by his published answer IN the
nsndamns proceedings. did not think II
had authority 20 consider this paper as
nn amended return. or rs explaining the
origiral return. nor that they could ac-
Gem. I'm any sense. as being such an
abstract as tho law rccuiTel
Thereupon Mr.. Yost applied 10 N"
Court Of Appeals FOR a mandamus 70 com
rol the Board. upon the papers then be-
fore them. 10 aw8rda the ceruhcate OF
election 90 him
before tho court took action. however.
unon this petition FOR mandamus Mr..
Yost applied 20 90 for another nandamus
fo the Election Commissioners OF Buck
ingnam. 10 compel them TO reconvene and
rccanvass the vote. and 70 certify the re-
snit i1 the usual way.
This second mandamus was awarded.
ard 10 seems very evident that Mr.. Nost
Lad lost hope in his proceeding against
the state Board. or else he would not
have applied for a new abstract 10 he sent
10 thorn in addition % what .hey already
bad
This wandamus was made poromptory.
end tho new abstract was sent IN ace
cordingly. When 10 reached the Secret ~,
mandamus was pending and undeterm-
inei against the Board 10 award The GER
tfcate 20 Yost on the returns made be-
fore that was received. Man.fcstly they
could not count both. They awaited the
instructions Of the court as 20 which re-
turn should be canvassed. Then. II hav-
ing been suggested hv the court That fne
petition in the mandamus case pending
against the state Board De agatn amend
cd so as % require them 20 canvass me
new return When received. the amend
nent was made and q mandamus 10
canvass the new return was awarded.
Sucn return was canyassed promptly by
the Board and certificate Of election
awarded j. Yost.
let IL Doc carefully noted that Tho court
has not decided chat the Board erred in
not count nc the return for Jacob as
though 10 has been Tor "J' Y0st. on The
contrary 81 has particularly RETAINED from
$50 ruling and tv necessary implication,
has sustained them ir their position.
Cfherw SO. why fhe suggestion 20 counsel
10 amend their petition so that the prayer
would read. not as therefore. o. award
the t'hcate % Yosf on the returns then
before The roar3. but 10 compel them 20
count the new return whoa received
Most certainly ~ fhe court had thought
fha first return sufficient Cr the new ra-
Ter fled hv Mr. Ncvf the day the Board
mot. proper paper 20 200 received and
CanNasFef. 10 would not nave. IN fnrrt
reurimandei The County Comm toners
hv commanding them 10 ro-assemhle and
do over aeoin what they had alrea ly done
in "a legal way. And even tho nav return
contained 81 votes for jacob Yosf a.
Clonmore's precinct which were not
counted for 3D." Nosf.
THE conclusion IS unavoidable that the
court would not issue its writ 20 compel
The State Board 90 count votes for - "
and Jacob" Yost MS one and the same
person; ana. therefore. that the Board
was sustained hv Tho court in every p0-
fltion 20 took except only that Junior"
is not n restrictive qualification ~ % name
lrt nlorefv doso~iufivo-a question that
dil NOT arise On the Yost case
JTSTITIA
Richmond Va Dec % 1c0f