The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-12-10

| rlRntd Ot I'LL CHUulubttb. w 0iic thts bioy
not contest their rights 10 an office before
| the canvassing board thew unquestlon ably
| have such right before the board OF con-
| test. The remedy is plain and speedy.
| Every candidate who is defeated on the
| face OF the returns may test the quea-
| ton OF his right to the office with his
adversary and nothing that the canvass
| Ing board may do. or can do, VIII In any
degree or in any manner whatever affect
| HE right. Such Is our construction OF
| the present law and we are fortified In
| the correctness of this construction not
| only by the Interpretation which the
court OF appeals OF this State has placed
| upon kindred statutes, but by all the law
OF the land so far as we have been able
to examine It, This board, under the
present law as a canvassing board, pos
| aesses no other or greater power than
| those conferred on the governor, attorney
general and secretary OF state
To emphasize the correctness OF this
conclusion the writer's Of the majority
| opinion quote largely from the statue
and numerous authorities and then take
UP the question OF the admissibiity OF
| evidence OF the papers and documents
submitted for their consideration.
THESE papers they say, ARE clearly
| incompetent testimony for any purpose
and 1t would be 50 held. we apprehend.
1 not only In all courts. but 1t would be so
held by us If we were now sitting as a
! board of contest. IL this board was clothe l
with unlimited judicial powers it would
not consider the ex-parte stater~nts and
extra official certificates here submitted.
| II could not do so without violating the
most familiar rules OF evidence What
We have said Is with respect to the ca
partc affidavits on amended returns from
certain counties which. In every instance.
only purport to have been signed by a
majority OF the county boards and which
do not certify any fact authorized by the
law. to be certified In this board.
''It is contended by counsel for the dem
ocratie candidates that the military forces
of the States was wrongfully and Illegally
called out on the day of the recsni elec-
ton with view of intlmidating the citi-
zens and voters of the city OF Louisville.
For the reason already stated, our answer
Is that we can not, as q mere canvassIng
beard. consider the grave and cnnsti.u-
tional questions which they may seek to
enforce upon our consideration. But in
justice to counsel and 10 ourselves, we
deem 1t relevant and pertinent 20 at least
indicate our view Oh the subject.
1T is a fact about which we express
no opinion, that the militia OF this com
monwealth were called out by the chiet
executive of the State on election day and
if the governor of the commonwealth was
in fact present In the city o. Loui5vil q
personally in command OF the State troops,
as argued, that presents condition whch
; does not meet the approval of this board
] and which, in our opinion, the law un
I qualitiedly condemns The orders and
, commands of the civil authorities will not
do in this country: 1t will certainly not
do in Kentucky. for anybody occupying
, official station or seeking political prefer
, ment to call to his aid or assistance tbs
militia of the State Such conduct is no
: merely reprehensible IN the first place
S but 1t can not be tolerated for momen
1 by the Anglo Saxon blood, which is repre-
I scented in the citizenship of this common
wealth. No law writer Of any respectable
b ity and no court has ever agreed that any
thing like this could be done In time o
peace with impunity."
The opinion quotes exhaustively from
Cooley's constitutional limitations in sup
port of the positions assumed. 1t CONTINUES
Q as follows:
4 1.-THE doctrine enunciated above is tn
n law of every State in this Republic AMI il
"A proper case with the facts properly show
before a tribunal having jurisdiction t.
ID deal with the subject, the conclusion whlcl
r such tribunal would come TO is not, In on
1 opinion. clouded by the slightest shadow o
\ doubt But for reasons already dis
Il cussed this board may not now sit in juds
a ment on that question nor does 1t inten
o by what 1t has said to commit itself to an.
/ hard and fast line of action In the future
4 Once more, counsel for the democrat
= urge on this board that It ought to re
o ject the vote OF the city Of Louisville OF
r account of the official acts OF the oour
4 judge as counsel contend, wrlts of man
r damus and mandatory injunctions, no
only forced, as 1t is claimed, the officer
Q OF election to admit persons to polling
s places who legally had no right to b.
there. but who by mandatory process re
= CURED officers to verify the returns
:. which. 1t is suggested to u.s. were not Il
e fact true. All OF this for the reas n
d stated, Is apart from the jurisdiction O
this board as at present constituted 1t 4
enough, however, in this connection to sa,
that this is not government by injunc
., ton, and when the question is pIorerl
L presented before n tribunal having juris
diction TO deal with the subject we predic
e with confidence that the judgment OF sucl
n tribunal will be swift and certain and /
will be distinctly held that such perform
$ ances on the part Of any judge in thl
, State, whether OF high or low degree, ar
/ usurpations which can not and will not b.
y sanctioned by law II the people of Ken
o lucky are noted for anything II Ia 70
} fair dealing. An attempt at intimidation
coercion or overdrawipg is resented h.
u every citizen OF the state and no oyhoe
can with impunity exercise the fun tiol
, VI MS pHHcc, lot the purpose OF ContTplllnl
. The lawful actions OF the citizens or [
put him in fear, except MS he has com
A mitted some public offense.
- I'VE regret We have regarded Il neces
= sary an view OF the questions before us
= 10 extend this opinion to such length 1t
!, result, from what has already been said
= is that the certificates on the face OF tn
|, returns before us, should be issued +
, William Taylor and to the other candidate
: on the republican State ticket with him
: and II is so ordered"
a The following Is the gist OF the minorit
! report by Commissioner Poyntz; 81 agre
. with my fellow members OF the board tina
\ the democratic candidates were legal
, elected with the State election held No
: vember T. and this fact Is still shown b
: the certificates made to this board by tn
n election boards"
! Mr.. Poyntz then goes briefly over tn
Il question of tissue ballots declaring tina
/ In his opinion their use should have rem
a dered void the election In the counti IS o
o Pike, johnson Knox and Magu,fn. Tn
k charge OF military intimidation at tn
lpolls In Louisville Is then discussed an
v the opinion given that the election Il
o Jefferson county should be declared VOID
L The opinion concludes as follows
L ~ ann no lawyer. hut 4 believe law