Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-12-22

box of this district changes
Lows former majority of 46 to a ma
jority for Mathis of rs, a change OF LII
votes. sufficient to alter the result in
the Whole county.
IF the recount is the true count, then
the result of the senatorial election Is
changed and the certificate must be
given by me to Mathis, the Republican
candidate, thus revoking the former
certificate now held by Low, the Demo-
cratic candidate. The question pre-
scented is whether, under the provision
of the election law authorizing and
regulating a recount, any power resides
in the justice under whose direction 1t
is made, except to issue a certificate in
favor of the person who has the ma
iority of votes, regardless of any and
every consideration. That the duties of
the justice are purely ministerial IS too
plain under our. a~djudicationsN to be
co~ntroverted. He is not to try the rights
of the parties; he may not receive eX-
ternal evidence that a fraud has been
perpetrated; he cannot try the rights
of the parties. The act seems to be de-
signed for a second count of the bal
lots, in order to secure certainly that
they were originally counted correctly.
Quotes the Law.
1.-THE Is that whenever any
candidate at any election shall have
reason to believe tina an error has
been made by any Board of Elections
in counting the vote or declaring the
vote whereby the result of such cleo
ton has been changed, such candidate
/ ay apply, etc. The express language
of the act is that "a recount of the
votes shall be publicly made, and i
the result by such recount is changed
a certificate shall be issued in favor
| Of the party who shall be found to have
received q majority Of h votes cas-
at such election. 1t seems quite cleal
that the statute contemplates that thu
votes EAST at the election must b
counted again and that the certificate
must issue to him who is found t
have q majority of votes, so counted
again IL those votes are found to haV'
been cast at the election. In short thu
whole proceedings is founded upon thu
identity of the ballots originally cas-
and those which are counted for tn
second time under judicial guidance.
81 think 1t Is manifest that If it weri
admittedly the fact that the ballots vo
ted had been distracted and others sub
stituted, the duty of the justice woul(
not be to perpetuate a fraud by certi
fying the changed results on a fraudu
lent basis. If upon recounting the con
tents of a ballot-box 1t was III tina
all the votes been cast for n candi
date, the internal evidence of that boz
would show that the votes so counted
were not the original ballots, and henc
not q recount.
These illustrations, unlikely as the,
are to occur, indicate that there i
some duty in the recounting agency t
determine that it is really a recoun
which is being made and not a coun
Of ballots never before enumerated
Where shall the line be drawn? I
seems to me when the internal eyidenc
of the box indicates that the indentit.
is lacking. Certainly in approaching
In a recount the presumption Is tina
the sworn officers of the law have don
their duty and have declared a tru
return as the result of their examina
ton. This would stand until 1t is over
turned.
The original certificate is not to b
shorn Of its power until the recount ha
done so in the manner indicated by tn
act. There is also a presumption tina