The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1912-11-22
CANvASS|NG BOARD
DENIES PETITION
Could Find No Precedent
That Would Author
ize a Recount.
STATUTE IS NOT APPLICABLE
Petition is Denied Because the Leeis-
Iature is Sole Judge of the Elec.
ton of Its Own Members.

For the first time in the history o
the county petition for recount oi
ballots was filed with the county board
of canvassers. The vote for representa-
tive In the state legislature was exceed
ingly close ,the exact figures, as returned
by the several election inspectors, being
Weidenfeller, republican, 23l5; Simp.
son, democrat, 2299, and Knobs, pro
gressive, 22S9, thus giving Mr.. Weden
feller a plurality of but l6 votes over his
democratic competitor who, himself
had pleurality over his progressive op-
ponept of only 10 votes.
Lawyers Free and Cavanaagh ap-
peared before the board ia behalf of the
petitioner and Prosecutor Elect Bur
hans appeared as the legal adviser OF
the board and opposed granting the
prayer of the petitioner.
After listening to the arguments and
taking time for due deliberation, the
board denied the prayer of the petitioner
and refused to enter upon the matter of
recount.
The particular precincts which the
-~NpetItioner desired to have Investigated
hhO VI
Columbia, Bangor, Hartford, Lawrence,
Paw Paw and Antwerp.
1t is due, perhaps to Mr.. Simpson and
his friends that the reasons for turning
down his petition should be made pub
lie. A casual reading of the statute
providing for recount of ballots would
seem to make it the duty of the can.
vassers to comply with the prayer OF the
petitioner, but the supreme court of the
state has construed the law otherwise.
In the cases OF Weston vs.. Probate
Judge, 80 Mich, 600, and Naumann and
Aldrich VS.. Board OF City Canvassers,
the supreme court refused to issue a
writ of mandamus ordering a recount
for the reason that the common council
was the sole judge of the election, quail
tication and return of ITS own members
In Wheeler vs.. County Canvassers, "a
Mich, 44S, a case which is on "all fours,
as the lawyers say, with the matter that
was brought before the board by Mr..
Simpson, the same doctrine is laid down
by the court. This was case where a
recount was sought of the votes cast for
state senator. In Pound VS.. Board of
Canvassers Of Wayne county, 100 Mich,
ISL, the court refused a recount for the
reason that the Office involved, circuit
Judge, WAS a state cfilce and that the
statute did not apply to state officers.
In Attorney General, ex-rel. Beers,
l55 Mich, A, a recanvass of votes case
for state senator, was denied foi the rea-
son that the legislature is the sole Judge
of the election and qualifications of its
own members.
1t will be seen that there is an un-
broken line of decisions that sustain the
action of the board in refusing to order
recanvass Of ballots and not a single
case to the contrary can be cited from
the reports Of the court.
For two reasons the board felt COM
PEELED to take the course it did. lst-
Because the legislature is the sole arbi-
ter of the uestion. 2nd-Because a
represeU.ativ is state office and the
statute is not applicable to such officials
Had it been county Office that was in
question, the board would have been
obliged to proceed, even if a recount of
every precinct in the county had been
involved
o. w. ROWLAND,
~ Road