The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-12-28

OF facts.
A. an election held Novs-nbex 4, 1854. the
graf contest was FOR she county seat
When rhs board Of county commissioners
canvass~d the returns December Is q ma
JoTtsy OF the board declared that more
than shree-hrshs OF the legal votes had
been cast n favor OF Eversu. Then com
-nenced the fight whzch has become Ills
tory.
The recent decision o, the supreme court
.n the Sno1om.sh county sea- case was
rendered By divided bench. the opinion.
which was written by Judge Anders being
coFscuFred N by Justices Gordon and Dun
bar. Ch2ef justice Hoyt dtsseuss. and the
signature Of Judge Scott does not appear
10 ahe decision.
After staang tie facts and giving a his
tory or the litigation winch has retained
ere county sea- al Snohon;sn for over Two
years, the opinion proceeds:
Many points are made and discussed
in the able and elaborate briefs Of counsel
Tor the respective parties, but We DO not
deem II necessary 10 determine or oonsid-
er them al ip order TO properly dispose of
removal Of county ssats provides that,
when the returns have been received and
compared. and the results asesrIained by
the board. II three-5ifths Of the legal votes
cast by those voting on the proposition ars
n 4ANor or any particular place. the board
must give notiSe Of the result by posting
notices thereof In all Ct the election pre-
c'ncts OF the os-nty. II the notice provid
ed Tor IN the next preceding section OF
this chapter. the place selected 10 be the
county seat OF the county must be SO de-
claFed after the election. After the day
named in the notice the place chosen is
the seat OF the county; and 1t shall be the
duty OF the several county officers. whose
Offices are required by law 10 be kept az
the county seat, 10 remove their respec-
tive onIceS, nlss, records Office Mixtures.
furniture and all public property pertain
ing 10 their respective offices 10 said eQuc-
y seat, hIlfs Am. Sts., sec. 2 49,, :, 49,
And 1t is contended that the board OF COM
fnissloners had no power, uTsder the law, 10
canvass the votes or declare the place ap-
peafing 20 be selected TO be the county
seat at date more than ninety days aft
er the elect IN. But IL mus. be conceded
that II was the duty of the commissioners
70 compare the returns ana ascertain the
result Of the election. This they did not
DO at their first meeting. as this court
| found ia ths krleschsl case. Not having
performed that dGty within the time spe-
eined IN the statute. IL they could not aft
efwards perform IL TIE effect would be to
oistranchiss the voters of the county, and
10 annul the election. We think that the
commissioners might have been compelSd
~ manoamls 10 meet and canvass the re-
turns. Notwithstanding their former pre-
tended canvass. unless IT be true. as
claimed, that they had no power to do 80
after the time mentioned in the statute.
And We are Of the opinion that what
the board might have been compelled 10 do
by mandamus they could do voluntarily,
for the office OF the writ is simply TO COM
pei the performance OF an act which the
law especially enioins as a duty resulting
from an office. tcas. or station, WI ere
there Is no plain. speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law
Laws Of 1895. page III; Nor do we think
the board was precluded from canvass
ing the returns and declaring the result
Of the election by the mere lapse OF time.
In our judgment the direction in the
statute as 10 time Is not mandatory. ii
Is not OF the. essence OF the thing TO be
done by the commssi )ners. There are ~
words showing that Ii was the intention
OF the legislature that the Canvass should
be made, the result declared and the no.
tees given witain ninety days after the
election. or not ~ all No penalty is
provided for 1on-performance, and the
canvass when completed accomplished
the purpose contemplated by the statute
because II determined the result q the
election. And we are therefore Of the
opinion that 1t was az efficacious II II
had been made within the time directed
BY the legislature
1T appears that the commissioners in
canvassing tha returns rejected certain
votes cast at Port Gardner in favor of
removal. and also 70 votes returned fFom
South snohomish against removal. and
the rejection or these last mentioned votes
constitutes the real ground OF complaint
In this action. 1t appears from the pol
books and tally lists that az votes were
cast against the proposition TO remove
the county seat at the precinct OF South
Snohomish. The commissioners, however.
counted only forty-two OF these votes for
the alleged reason. IL seems, that the re-
mainder appeared to be spurious. Illegal
and fraudulent. IL Is claimed by ap-
pellants that the commissioners were
justified in rejecting these votes
for the reason that IL appears on the tally
lists that the ink was changed in
making the tally marks after forty
two votes were registered: that era
sureS and changes were made In the fig
urea showing the total number Of votes
cast, and also In the written statement or
the total numiser Of votes on the last page
of the poll book; and that the highest
number of votes cast at the election IN the
county for any county or state onlcSr was
a. only. on the contrary. IL Is contended
by the learned counsel for the respondent
that the commissioners had no right or
power to reject votes appearing on the re-
turns for the reasons alleged, or Tor any
other reason; but that they were bound
TO count ali votes appearing on ths race
OF the returns.
1T IL almost uniformly held by the
courts IN this country that the duty OF
oanVasSlng boards genertIsy Is ministerial
simply. and consists in ascertainlng the
number Of votes poaied and dsci - ING me NJ
turns. and such was declared 10 pc the
rule OF law in this state IN state vs. Trim
bed. II Wash. +te: III fae. lsS; Ana Lae
that the statutes generally provide meth
DDS Tor coGtesting elections. ana tIylHS
the title 10 office before some 1uoiclaI IT.
bunRl having power 20 examine ~ltIlesees
receive evidence ard determine the real
facts Irrespective OF wlat may appear
on the face of the returns. But where
the legislature have 6evolved upon par
tleular tribunal or board the duty OF as
certaining. DECLARING and publishing the
result OF an election 10 determine q rsscia4
question. such IS the removal 81 a county
seat IL would seem TO have been their
intention that such tribunal. and no other
should finally determine surh result and
they cannot Discharge their duty with
ont exercising their Judgment as . tbs
matters 10 be determined All the courts
os general Jurisdiction Can do 70 cases OF
this character, Is 20 ascertain 'xhethsr ire
tribunal or board has proceeded according
10 tha directions of the statute acaaiDg
their duties and 10 a. clare tNesr pro
ceesSinsS Intellectual and void. u they have
departed from such directions. n TIE
Krfs-schei ssa.e. this court held that che
county commissioners could not ar0lfFa-
rfv and contrary 10 the constitution and
. the isW. determine the result g TIE elsc-
ton. hsst must ascertain the result trUf1
an erar nation. or. 4SfnE th0 statutory
term a comparison Of the returns beea use
suck i the mandate % the aw by wAicA
egat n fhls case 81 appears that thu
hoard or al least a FRA t3fifT ~ &fs men,
beers received I'd compared. Ire ret0rr@
An4 hxcer1 alnsd ne n1Dosr o. legal votes
81 % the proposition end declared the
result ard they arrived al "a Hrons cor
elaslon. 80 knoE Of 10 lsgal rnsthoa
whereby their &C. - that regard can ta
10 R5eksy rs Williams. WASH. ~.
gre 81 toinea ire removal % ths county seat
e,s..sslxS 81 appeared that the coBnfy con-
xr14Sxtorerx acted upon an Insufficient pc
fsstar ard tfersl ore without 1aTtSaiet3ssF-
ga submitting tae question 20 = E9utaiaF
vote. and "a TIRE kTte@casl case We 90 TIE
same shirw tor TIRE reasons herein nssFoTss
Indicated Ia Peek vs.. Supervisors, 3
Ma 81 tire court heiG te@t procse- TX
to remove a coaaty seat ~ htcs failea 20
wasch ihe psrnpcssd renewal was % be
nae wsuz irvafa1. Buf ths Same c9s1rs hss