Weekly independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 1887-1914, 1898-12-30
VOLUME NXXIT.
SHOULD DIHESOLnIrR voTEHAvE
BEEN CoUSTEDy

The reports We receive through our
western exchanges in regard to the
canvass Of the State election returns
tell us that the Honorable Board OF
Canvnsscrs r. fused la count the rul.
dier vote because the law -, 1896 is
claimed Ia har been repealed. and
that IL it wns.proper to count this vote
at all il should bc done hl the b ard
mentioned in the constitutional rl.c
tlSn ordnance To canvass the vote in
stead Of ihe board then canvas-iug
the Stat" vote.
With nll due respect for the opinion
OF the present cauSas-gnp board, wc
believe that thcr" are some impur
ant matters which nave escaped tlir
attention nf the present b ard re.
garIInp the same. IL ii hc admitted
that the board mentioned ~ the rirc
ti0n ordinance WIS the loIrI nri.in.
ally entitled Ia canvass the tc, and
th" Hon. Chief Justice 81 rhc Su-
p-eme Court, lao WAS u member of
tue present caivIs~iur hulr.l. rs u
member "f the board under titn Con.
stItutInu Orlinan - to- counr the same
or canvass II. tlicl should have don"
s, IL such wns ~, opinion Of the pr.,-
cni board, ti"u. " they believe the
vote should have been counted NJ all,
1t seems Ia us that h" shuul have
proceeded IT, canvass the v itc in con
ncc,iun with the u,hcr memhcrs
thereof, instead OF not canvas .ing it
because the then sIitIHp board cOali
not do it. !, Id a duty he shpulI
have pcrfOrme l ns a member nf un-
other brard. and the people may well
ask, Why did not such DO .rd perform
the duty?
Our supreme Court held in the
Lynip-iiuckncr case that the inspect
ors Of elections could not deprive
legal voters nf thrir votes by Ignn.
rance or failure Ia pcr'nru their
duties III re owing the III uhCrs un
the bIllors be ere depu~it ny the
votes i'll the ballot hnXcs.
Can this hourI, by IL neglect to can-
vnsa, deprive the voters ~ their vnrrs
or the pcrs pns receiving the same the
right To have them cnuulcd for them?
But there II another qu .s'luu which
We think tht ard ma, not have hal
its attention called lu which. It w"ul.
seem to III, has an important hrarug
on this matter, and that ia. IL lie law
carrying the constitution Il provision
into effect in ftct rcpc lIrd? No
donbt the Legislature attempted tn
repeal il aud did Hll they could IN
that direc'Inn. but a serious qurs iUu
arises, Could they do 1t w hnIt max.
ing slmo other proyisipn ~ law Tor
into ctIrctY
Our Supreme 'Onrt III ono oi lis
opinions says: "iIr power uf the
Legislature To- repeal law enacted
for the purpose oi cHrr irg into rfTrri
II provision ~ the constIt ton with.
out nf the same time pns$,ng rome
other law Ia ma';r it cGcctiv" is Il
question that will not bc iii cuss,d
lin the case before the cour J.
Tho intimation II the court is hero
81, rongly made that the power doe.
not cyHt III the legislature. In the
present nnttcr this Tucsti III ~ lcgm
lative power might bc aIl.Impurinui
Wa have In no time to iuvrs,ightr
the opinion nf either runrls IN the
matter. but reason and judir. II
wOul l ECcn. shoulI bc against tlm
Legislative power.
II the L"uislaIurc dill no, have th,
power "f rcpG Il in this ma Ter vi,
oui rnact'ng & sbus Other Law to carr
ont tho constitution prnvisinnI r.
gard mg ~. dirrs' voice ihr., u " ld
Bc"nI 10 u, mi tic IL ~ vii
Tcnsnn Why the prcrnt butrh ,houl
not hayC cHnvIs'O the yuto. .--Wu.
ncuucra AdyucaiC.