The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1898-12-07
OPINION BY Mr.. WALSER
SECRETARY OF STATE THOAP-
son ASKED FOR 1T.
WILL ISSUE CERTIFICATE ACCORDINGLY
The Dropping of Middle Initial Does not In
validate Vote. Ths Secretary Of State
Allowed to Exercise His
Best Judgment
Best Judgment


George II Brown, Jr., will get his
commission as Judge of the Superior
court. His election will today be GER
tilted to the Governor by the Secretary
of State.
1t will be remembered that the vote
cast for Judge Brown was officially re-
turned to the Secretary OF State as fol-
lows: George H. Brown. IT., 1446l6;
George H. Brown. 2S,i2S; George w.
Brown, Jr, 1870; George E. Brown, 2
407.
Though it was perfectly certain that
all these votes were cast for George
II. Brown. .Jr'' and should have been
so counted and the returns made out
to the Secretary of State, still Secretary
Thompson had some doubt as to his
duty under the law. He, therefore.
asked the Attorney Generals opinion
as to whether the votes east for George
III. Brown ought to be counted for
George H. Brown, il.
Replying TO DR. Thompson's letter,
Attorney General Walser yesterday rem
dered the following able and exhaust
i've opinion. which sets at rest all ques-
ton as to the duty of the Secretary
of State in such cases, under the pres
ent election law:
December G. 1895.
Hon. Cyrus Thompson, Secretary of
State. Raleigh, \. c.
Sir: In reply TO your communication
Of the 3D. instant, / beg leave TO submit
the following opinion upon the questions
therein propounded:
I'm arriving at the result of
the election for Judge for the
First judicial district shall | consider
George III. Brown. ,lr., and George II.
Brown as the same o. as distinct PEI
sons?'
I'm arriving ut the result Of the elec.
ton for Solicitor in the Seventh jldlelal
district. shall / consider Colin Nj. Me
/. Lean and Colin Mclean as the same per-
sons or as distinct persons?'
Sections y and 66 of the Laws 1898,
chapter 49, known rs the Election Law,
define yonr duties relative to the ques.
tions upon which you desire the opinion
OF this department. Section - reads as
follows lie shall proceed to add ur
the figures as they appear i'll and by
said returns or abstracts. From these
he shall make an abstract stating the
number of ballots east for each candl-
date. the names of all the persons voted
for. for what Offices they received the
votes. the number of votes each received,
and whom. by such count. he ascer
tains to be elected to the Office Sec
ton 66 reads as follows: THE Secre-
tary ins canvassing said returns. shall
merely add mp the returns, as certified
to him by the county returning officers
and it shall be his duty to disregard any
such apparent clerical error as may not
render it reasonably uncertain who was
the person intended to be designated a.
voted for. and what was the number o.
votes actually received by each candi
date This section refers to the re
turns for electors of President and Vice
President of the United States. You will
notice the restricted and guarded ian
guage with which your power is circum
scribed. ITO add up the figures, '.shal
merely add up the returns, is the almost
painfully plain English used. Section
80 should. in my opinion, be read in the
light of section 66.
The law is well settled that boards o
canyassing officers are ministerial mere
w. whose duty it is to receive the re
turns from the various precincts or ccun
ties, as the case may be, and declare thu
results as shown by the face Of the re
turns. Is Am. and Eng. Ency., 800
The Supreme court of Missouri, undeI
n statute similar to the one in question
held: mo discretion is given, but thu
simple ministerial duty to cast up and
award the certificates to the person hav
ing the highest number of votes" Estate
" Steers, A Mo-, 224)
The Supreme court Of Illinois has held:
Theirs is a mere mechanical or, rather
arithmetical duty People V. Head, q
ILL.,, 327.)
In Wisconsin the court said: "Thei
duties are strictly ministerial. They ar
to add up and ascertain by calculation
the number of votes given for any office.
ATTY Gen. V. Barston, Wis, 567)
IN Indiana the court has said: THE!
are simply to cast up the votes giver
for each person and to declare the per
sons having the largest number of vote
elected to the office voted for Brow
Y. OBrin. Charter. Gnd.)
- And to the same effect is the long lin
of decided cases The principle is a cor
rect one. ANY power further than that
indicated by the cited cases would b.
dangerous in the extreme III the hand'
of board of canvassers. But l an
of the opinion, after much consideration
of the matter, that the case you presen
is distingushable from the many case
found in the law books. | think Georg
III. Brown and George H. Brown, Jr..
should be treated as designating one anC
the same person and not as different
persons. The returns should he read il
the light of such facts of public notorietl
connected with the election as every onf
takes notice of. The person receiving
the certificate should be the same, fairl,
and reasonably understood. who receiy
al n mn intitv Of the Nnics rs shnMn hN