Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1896-12-03

I
only that public officials shall he com
PEELED to do their duty and obey lib,
laws OF the State OF Delaware. Tha
Is all We ask, we want only justic,
under this proceeding.
Court adjourned until o'clock Sat
urday morning.
Dover, Nov. 30.-Mr. Wolcott, In
closing for the respondents, in the
Kent county mandamus case, at the
reconvening OF the court on Saturday
afternoon, referred to the fact that II
is settled upon the highest authority
that mandamus in modern practice il
nothing more than an action at law
between parties, and is not considered
as prerogative writ--that is to say,
1t is in this case an action involving
the rights of parties to hold certificates
of an election to the respective places
mentioned and enumerated in those
certificates.
\ certificate, as has well been SAID,
is nothing more nor less than prima
facie evidence. 1t is a colorado title
TO an Office. 1t settled nothing Even
If this court we're to issue this man
damus, which ia asked for, il will
settle nothing finally. 1t would simply
give color OF title to the office to which
these defendant parties aspire.
Therefore II cannot be urged that
this is contest between this board of
canvass and the people of the county Of
Kent, and we will step down from this
LOFTY plane upon which our learned
friends on the other side have been
parading and struggling before this
10 fxasa l.. n
Delaware upon the relation of A b and
G d. 1t is nevertheless contest be.
tween A b and Il f, &c.
The first step that should have been
taken (by perhaps candidate) should
nave been 10 secure q mandamus from
the court compelling the inspectors Of
the election district Of West Dover
hundred to sign the returns of the vote
of that hundred, SO they could be pre-
scented TO the board of canvass when
they met on the 9th OF November, ami
thus enabled them to canvass said vote
IN said hundred. Until so signed the
board OF canvass cannot comply with
the prayer OF the petition to canvass
the votes OF every hundred and election
precinct in said county Of Kent.
Now, who would contend that these
inspectors could of their own motion
assemble as a board OF canvass. II
they cannot do this, then how could
this court command them TO do any
thing which they cannot voluntarily
do! They have met, acted and adj
lourned. and that is the limitation of
their existence.
He commended also that the relators
mad an adequate remedy provided By
law for contesting the seats in both
houses OF the Legislature: and as far
as the Constitutional Convention dele.
gates were concerned. they also lind an
adequate remedy because the conven-
tion was u law unto itself and could
act as it pleased in the matter.
After reviewing and commenting
upon some authorities. Mr.. Wocott said
1t may please your honors, / was not
10 court yesterday afternoon, when my
friend, Mr.. Pennewill, addressed you.
But was in court this morning when
my friend, Mr.. Watson, did address
your honors: and l must confess that
his speech was not revelation to me.
1t may he revelation to the court, but
L DO not suppose it was r revelation to
any citizen Of the county of Kent.
Now, somebody has said somef6ing
about the Inconsistency, the ambiguity,
the evasiveness and the insufficency Of
our answer. When We come to con-
slider one question-what these respond
ents allege as the reason for the acts
which they did on the 9Th day of
November, do not think there can be
any evasiveneRs about that; I do not
think there can be any ambiguity about
that; do not think there can be- any
inconsistency about that either As to
whether there is any lack of sufiicienoy,
That perhaps my be regarded as de-
oatable question; but / do not think
there is any insufficiency about it. 1t
comes up to the full requirements of
the rule laid down by my learned
friends on the other side. / am going
TO read Just part Of our answer for
the enlightenment of the court.
That as TO the first paragraph of
section of said petition, the said re.
spondents make answer and they admit |
that elections ere held in the Western
election district of Duck Creek hun |
dred, In Kenton hundred, &c. but |
deny that any election whatever was |
held in the Eastern election district of |
Duck Creek hundred Ia there apy |
ambiguity about that? And also deny
that elections were held in the remain
ing districts, in said section of said |
petition enumerated, except in form
only, Tor the following reasons:
!, LIST. the election law provides that |
there shall be voters assistants at each |
election district in this county, chosen
from the two political parties. The
Democratic party and the Republican
party were decided by the only officers
authorized 10 make such decision to be
The two principal parties for the cleo.
non held on the 81 day of November,
1916. Yet Notwithstanding the said
provisions of law and the said decision,
voters assistants FROM the Republican
party were not chosen in either the
flrst and Second election districts of
East Dover hundred, the Eastern cleo
ion district of North Murderkill hum
ired, the election district No. 9 of
south Murderkill hundred, nor elec-
lion districts Nos. | and 2 in Milford
hundred.
Why was that done? This answer
llleges that 1T was done because they
wanted the voters assistants inside,
VINO, by some device, sign or signal,
'ould communicate to the worker out.
'lde OF the polls how the men whom
hey bad purchased voted, and whether
hey had carried out the contract.
nat Is true, and l defy con-
radlction from any source whatever.
Is there any ambiguity about that?
IS thers any evasiveness about thatY
wye, is there Any insulficieucy in that
n court of morals, or even in a legal
tribunal?
THAT ia what they did. Wben ~