Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-01-03
WHY THE VOTES DIFFERED.

voted (nominally) for Bryan and Sewal'
/ and not for tho electors. But, TO con1
form to the laws Of the United States ana
! Virginia the returns OF tho election had
| to be made as n each OF the Democratic
electors had received so many votes. In
tho returns Bryan and Sewall were is-
norcd If all these returns OF the Judges
and commissioners Of election had been
correctly made unquostionably, each
elector would have been credited with
exactly the number Of votes credited 20 the
other electors; but, unfortunately some
election officials were careless in making
out their certificates and abstracts. John
Smith. for instance might have been
credited with the votes OF one county
under the name Of John Smith, and
I'm another county under the name
OF J. Smith. These votes the State
Board Of Canvassers held could not be
aggregated.
To understand the boards position, II
is only necessary to bear I'm mind the
fact that the duties OF the State Can
vassing Board are purely ministerial in
their nature. and that it must count the
vote precisely as it is certified to it by
me county clerks Justice Gray. Of the
Supreme Court OF Massachusetts. who
is now an associate justice Of the su-
nreme Court Of the United States. speak
ing for a unanimous court, I'm the case
Of Clark VS.. Board Of Canvassers. said
the duties Of the Canvassing Board were
confined TO g question OF "inneXble arith-
meuc," and that tho board was not
empowered TO count for l.. Clark votes
returned for Leonard Clark. Likewise.
the Supreme Court Of Maine, I'm an opin-
ion concurrcd in by all the justices, held
that votes returned for J. Smith could not
be counted for John Smith. Decisions
of appellate courts in other States, not
necessary TO cite, confirm those men
tened
Tine state Board also declined to con
slider an alleged amended abstract of the
vote OF Buckingham county fled with it
by Mr.. Yost on the morning st convened
TO begin the canvass. on the ground that
when once the County Commissioners Of
Election have met and canvassed the vote
OF q county attached the abstract and
adjourned, the commissioners aye
"lunctus oliicio" and cannot. OF their own
motion. reconvene our own Court of
Appeals laid down this rule IN the case
If Mckinney VS.. Peers, Clerk, 81, Va,
$50, following a long line Of de-
clslons Of other courts. Indeed. I'm some
o. the states # is held that the County
Canvassing boards cannot be reconvened
oven by command Of the writ Of man
damus and if so reconvened, their acts
are a nulHty. This is notably so I'm
Minnesota.
Guided by the principle aforesaid
the Board of State Canvassers Of Viz
einia declined TO count for J. Yost votes
returned for jacob Yost and for James
w. Marshall votes returned for j. W.
Marshall and J. NJ. Marshall; and for
Charles M. Wallace, Jr. votes returned
for c.. VI. Wallace, C. W. wallace etcr
ETC., etc.
From these decisions Of the board coun-
sci for 1Ir. Yost appealed. and petitioned
the Supreme Court Of Appeals of Viz
einia for a mandamus TO compel the
state Board to count the dinerantiating
votes for the same person, or to accept
this amended abstract in lieu Of the
one originally received. This tie
court, negatively, refused to do, b. omit
ting to pass on that petition; and, in
stead suggesting to counsel for Mr.. Yo5t
the proper mode Of procedure-namely. by
mandamus against the Commissioners Of
Election Of buckingham county, TO COM
pel them to send 10 the Board Of State
Canvassers an amended abstract OF the
vote cast in that county, which would be
a correct copy Of the original on file in the
Clerks Office OF said county This was
done. and the abstract sent 10 the State
Board. in obedience TO the courts order,
was. by command OF the court, counted
in place Of the two abstracts previously
before the board Here the court, by
strong inference, further sustained the
previous action Of the State Board; as
the last abstract, which the court said
was tho true abstract, contained LIB
votes for j. Yost and 50 votes for Jake
Yost; and they were 50 counted.
We are also asked why the state Board
did not count the votes contained in
this abstract until mandamused by the
court. A moments reelection will answer.
Including the one just mentioned, there
were at the time Of It's receipt three abb
stracts Of the vote Of Buckingham county
before the board, each different from the
other. and two of them claimed by Mr.
Yost, at various times, TO be the true
abstract. The court had then pending
before it petitions for a mandamus TO
compel the State Board to count the
votes I'm the amended abstract first re-
ceived from Buckingham county, and also
TO compel II to count for j. Yost the votes
in the original abstract which were re-
turned for Jacob Yost. But on these
petitions the court had not acted. Being
unable 10 anticipate the decision Of the
court. the State Board was In a quandary
10 know which Was the true abstract,
and out Of en- abundance Of caution IL
was deemed best TO inform the court Of
its dilemma. and request IL 10 indicate
bv a formal order the particular alb
stract which II considered TO represent
the true vote Of buckingham county.
To do this, Attorney-General Scott
who had been prevented by sickness from
attending the sessions Of the board was
telegraphed for but before his arrival,
the order was entered on motion Of petit
toners counsel. Ii is worthy Of remark.
that Acknowledgement Scott. on his ar
rival. concurred fully IN the Views OF
the majority OF the board. and endorsed
the position they had maintained through