Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1911-05-27

Sffc. i no material CudHSS III IAo S'.~S
ute was the insertion of the words as
shown by the poll list of said election.
The present statute has been repeal
eddy before the supreme court and It's
attention directed to this language
first found in the code of 1897. In the
case OF Cameron VS.. Fellows, 100 Iowa,
534, 1t is said:
But as the statement Of consent
must be compared with the poll books
in making the canvass by the board OF
supervisors, and as the voters who
cast their ballots at the last general
election can, under the statutes only
be ascertained from the poll books,
such canvass must take place while
these are part Of the records of the
county auditors Office"
In the case of Porter vs.. Butterf1eld,
116 Ia, 725, the same statutory pro-
vision was under consideration and
this very pertinent language was used:
Appellants contend that the voters
who cast their ballots at the last gen.
eral election preceding the filing OF the
statements of consent may only be as
certained from the poll books.
The code provides that these state
ments of consent shall be signed by
certain percentage of the voters (de-
pending on the size Of the locality
who voted at the last preceding cleo
ton as shown by the poll list of said
election. Code, sections 2448, 2449. The
poll list Is thus made the only and ex-
elusive evidence as to who voted in
the particular localities,
The legislature had power to make
rules of evidence for these proceedings
and these rules so made must be OBJ.
served by the courts. AS the poll books
are made the only exclusive evidence
by which to determine who voted at
any preceding election parol evidence
= is inadmissible.
Generally speaking, the names appear
ing on the statements of consent and
the poll list must be identical"
Again in Reed VS.. Jugenheimer, 11S
Ia. 610, it is said:
Section 2450 of the code provides,
among other things, that in cases OF
appeal from the findings Of the board
Of supervisors the auditor shall certify
the statements Of consent, and all pa
pers and records, to the district court
where the matter shall be tried de
novo. These records must, of neces-
sity, under the holding in the Por-
ter case, include the poll books, for
they are made the sole and exclusive
evidence as to who voted at the gen.
eral election, which is made the basis
for finding as to the sutnciency OF
the statements, and the only evidence
on which the district court may act in
trying the case de novo.'
In the case of Wilson VS.. Bohstedt,
1876 Iowa, 451, the claim that a voters
name as it appears on the pail book
may be incorrect through no faultt of
his, but through accident, or the mis-
take or fraud the clerks of the cleo
ton. is thus answered.:
"In the rter-Butterfield case we
held that the only method of identity
ing names on the statement of con-
sent is by the poll book or poll list,
and that where the name on the state
ment Of consent Is entirely different
from that appearing on the poll book,
parol evidence Is not admissible for
the purpose of showing that the voter
who signed the statement of consent
In fact voted at the preceding general
election although under a somewhat
name. So Appellant
contends, however, that the rule of the
Porter Butterfield case is not control
Ing here because many of the names
appearing on the poll books were not,
In fact, as given to the clerk Of the
but were so recorded through
accident. fraud or mistake, and that,
because of this new element in the
case, the parol evidence offered by
him was competent. The statute makes
no such exception. however, and, as
said in the Porter-Butterfield case, the
legislature has power to make rules OF
evidence governing these proceedings,
and, when it does so, such rules super
cede general rules of evidence, and
must be observed by the courts
Finally, in the case Of Scott vs..
IA Ia, 1854, the rule is en-
phatically repeated:
"The names on the statement Of con-
poll books Of the last preceding gener-
Al election. And names appearing on
the petition that are not identical
with the corresponding name on the
poll list cannot be counted
Proponents, however, urge in avoid
ance of these rulings that all the cases
where the present statute is involved |
concern statements of consent in To-
:alities where no registration was
.equired and where, therefore the !
poll books would be the only rec
ord kept in connection with the cleo
Ion and, hence, the supreme court
could, in considering these cases, with
use the term poll book as
synonymous with poll list, and with
tut necessarily, determining what
would constitute the poll list in city
where the voters must be registered.
That the supreme court In these cases
las used the terms as meaning the
same thing is apparent from the fore
,oing excerpts; but the legislature has
llso used them as synonymous, at the
same time distinguishing the registry |
lists by designating them as such.
Section lila of the code provides, in
'eference to the method Of voting at
elections, that in precincts where reg
Is required, II the name Of
he voter lis found on the register Of
yoters by the officer having charge
hereof he shall repeat the name
aloud and the voter be given ballot.
Section 1116 REQUIRES that the name of |