Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1896-11-26

Special Correspondence OF Gazette and journal
Dover, Nov. 23. When the time
arrived for the board of canvass Of
Kent county TO meet and recount and
tabulate the returns of this county,
in accordance with the order of the
court, at noon to DAY, there were only
half Of the members OF the board and a
handful OF spectators present
At ~. 10 o'clock Sheriff Shaw, chair
man oi the board. called for order and
began the roll-call. The following in.
spectOrs were present:
East Dover hundred-First district,
Erasmus Burton; Second district, Will
liam II. Walker; Third district, John
s. Rowan. North Murderkill-LeviG g.
Sterner. South Murderkill-B. L. Con
well. Milford-Oarence Mason and
Charles @. Macklin.
All are Republicans except William
II. Walker, Democrat, who refused to
sign the certificates at the frat can
vass. As the board now stands it is a
tie.
Those who were not present are
Thomas Mccoy, aud A. j. FAIRIES,
Duck Creek; W. II. GreenweIl, Ken
Z ton; j. l.. Section, Little Creek; I.
H. Baxter, West Dover; A. j. Draper,
North Murderkill; S. @. Hughes,
South Murderkill. W. Shsdrake and
Frank Urumlin, Mispillion.
No other members Of the board Of
canvass appearing at l o'clock the
seven inspectors and Sheriff Shaw adj
journed without taking any action
whatever. 1850. 81
Dover, Nov. 25-During all of yes.
terday the superior court wrestled with
the Kent county election :ase, and
the argument was based upon the bold
scheme of the defence in moving to
quash the alternative writ. Of man
damus. instead of answering it and
attempting to justify the action of the
Kent canvassing board In refusing to
reconvene and canvass the vote OF the
recent election in that county, as
ordered by the court. This move was
a surprise to the attorneys on the other
side, particularly the reason urged in
support of the motion to the effect that
the inspectors who held the election
bad not been legally elected. The
point was new to everybody not in the
secret, and it created a decided COM
motion, by reason OF its far-reaching
importance.
The opening discussion related to
the status of Sheriff Shaw in the case.
The defence held that he was party
TO the proceedings, and therefore had
no right to serve the writ OF man
,damus on the other inspectors. This
was met by the argument that the
sheriff ia merely designated by law as
the presiding officer Of the board OF
canvass and not an essential feature Of
the board, the law providing that in
the event of his absence or refusal to
serve, the coroner may act. and in lieu
of the latter, the parliamentary. Should
all three be absent or recalcitrant, the
board 10 authorized to choose n pre-
siding officer from among It's members.
Elk. Congressman John B. Pennington,
of counsel for the defendants. opened
proceedings with formal motion that
the writ be quashed. on the ground
that ii was directed to the inspectors
of election, and not to the sheriff and
the board of canvass. He quoted frou
the law, and argued that upon the
the functions Of the inspectors, as
such. ceased. They then became can
vassers He then filed, in detail, eight
reasons in support of the motion to
quash the writ of mandamus, az follows
Il. For that the writ of mandamus
was not directed to the proper persons
in that 1t was directed to the persons
alleged to be inspectors of the several
hundreds and election districts OF Kent
county and the sheriff OF Kent county,
whereas, il should have been to the
sheriff and other alleged members OF
the alleged board of canvass. command
ing it as such board to reconvene and
perform the mandates Of said writ.
SO. For that the said alternative
writ Of mandamus does not follow the
petition and the order OF the court in
that new party is made, to wit
Samuel L.. Shaw, sheriff of Kent
county. is joined as correspondent
or defendant without any authority
therefor.
''3. For that IL does not appear from
the petition and writ of mandamus
that the certificates Of election which
were produced by the sheriff and the
INSPECTORS of the several hundreds and
election districts throughout the
county, sitting as an alleged board OF
canvass on Thursday, the 9th day Of
November, A. ID. 1896, as stated In
said petition and writ Of mandamus,
were signed and properly authenticated
by the Inspector and judges of the re.
spective hundreds or election districts
or by majority thereof; nor that th.
SAID certificate had the votes received
by each and every candidate voted fol
set out in words at length.
81 For that the avermant, that 9
certificate OF election for each hundred
or election district was presented tc
the sheriff at the session of the alleged
board of cauvass.did not set forth with
sufficient particularly the papers pur'
porting to be certificates Of election il
the several hundreds and election dis
tricts, to show that they were suct
certificates from which the alleged
board of canvass was bound to ascer
tain and to calculate the state of tb,
election throughout the county.
IS. For that it is alleged that you
respondents had been legally elected o
appointed inspectors of election TO
Kent county; whereas, they could no
have been so elected because there i
no law of this State authorizing tn
election OF inspectors, and that il ap
pointed, il should have been set fortl
clearly and distinctly when and b.
whom they were respectively appointed
sc. For that George ii. Murray j
made party relator when he does no
appear that he signed the petition 70
the rule or writ OF mapdamus; or ha
ever been made a party relator in an,
proper manner.