The Alaska daily empire., 1917-03-21

l the statute constitute Nhe ICNufn are | Q) the certificate of the clecion board as the result of said election: (2) one Of the registers ot votes; (3) all
 the ballots cast; CD offidovits tof | challenged vOtcrs)
 | The Canvasslng Board Is Co canvass and compile that Return-not simply a ! part Of that Return. For the Cam | wasting Board to confinc Itself Co a 1 consideration Of only part Of that ! Return would not be tO canvass that 1 duplicate register and all ballots to be | sent tO the Governor In addition Co | the certificate of the Judges, it must have had an object in SO doing, It the l tiflCatC as the be all and end uf the ] rcturng--lf the Canvassing Board Is a mere adding machine Co tOtaliZc the votes as certified by the election board, | why thC requlreincRt Ih9I lhS reglS- | ration book and the ballots be sent | Co the Board? Why not simply pro- ! tide that the certificate of the Judges | oc sent? The very object and pur- 1 pose og requiring the register Of votes
 md all ballots to be sent along with | the certificate, and making them pnrt | lf thc return, must have been so that l they may all come under the eye of ! the Canvassing Board the one acting ls a check upon tho other. and that from the return as whole the C1nv0sS- ng Board shall add the figures of votes sast in any given precinct Co the other l HttlInE itkeWlrt llNdNhtks
 Let us suppose the Board Co canvass rnly a plst of the Return. lt might ycll happen that in the part not sanvasScd something appears which ab- solutcly nulliticS the effect Of that part which is CanylSSCd, or renders the whole return so uncertain and indCfl- lite that it cannot bc intclligCntly cam vasscd Ut all For instance: the reg | ster of votes Is as much part or he Return as the certificate of the ! .1nafTnu hoard 1lEn inc 1 ballots. Now suppose that that purt | pf the return which Is called the reg l stcr of votes should show that in a given precinct only lJu votes were cast md that the number Of ballots rec | turned was 25O. and that tho ccrtn- ate of the election board showed | hat one of the candidates received ll36 votes and the other candidate very evident that the certificate and 1 the registration book and the ballots could not all speak tho truth The CanvaSsinE Board surely would have part thereof would be utterly antuE- onistic to every other, part thereof, and all cannot stand; and the Canvass Ing Board could not so behind the rec return was true and which was false, If, however. the return taken altOgcth- CT speaks intelligcntly. the CaayassInG Board must hear what it says.
 choggIuns
 Opening then tho Rcturn-thc sealed envelope (from ChogEiung precinct, for inStancCl for the purpose Of CanyaSSinC the CanvassinC Board find? The an- swcT is that it found the Return from that precinct consisting or CD cCrtill- catc from the election board that Wick
 arSh1m had received % and Sul2cr 3
 votes; @ register of voters showing
 2S votes cast; C3) 2S non-official bRl- lots, being the 2S votes aforesaid Here
 the Return Is speaking and it is speak ing intclligcntly-Thcrc iS no doubt or
 uncertainty as to what it says-no oc- CRsiOn for COnstruCuOn--It means what it says. and it cannot bc taken Co mean more than it says Each one Of
 these pseudo ballots has n voice that cries. "I am prctcndcr'-2S distinct and separate voices from ChOggiung- all there are in ChoggiunE-CryinG In no uncertain tone, VI am a prctcndcr look at mC-yOu can see it In my
 face. l am no real ballot such as the law requires a freeman Co cast 1T he would make known his preference: I am only a slip Of papcr-an outc0st by the law" And SO they arc-prc- tenders, all of thCm-loOlIinE at them one can tell. To tell that, Is not Co exercise discretion" or judgment" 70 it Is but Co open ones eyes and take In the things that appcar-to be attcn- tive and hear the voices that speak.
 
 ton which each Of these ballots speaks IS not contradictory of the certificate oC thc judgcs-it iS In perfect cOnso- nance with what the judges say.
 They, the judges say by their return enclosing these slips of paper. There were 2S non-oftcial ballots cast in ChoEEiunE, Of which 25 bore the name of WickcrSham and 3 bore the name of Sulzcr." They might just as well have said. "2S electors met together in ChoggIunG and viva voce % were for WlCkCrsham and were for SulzcT They might just as well have said, "2S electors met together in ChogEiung and cast 2S pebbles into n box: % Of the pebbles were white and by agreement arc for WiCkcrsham. 8 Of the pebbles were black and by agreement are for SulZcr."
 The statute says that the Canvassing Board shall issue the certificate Co "thc person who has received tho greatest number of votes" It says that the vot- Ing shall be by the official ballot" Are such things ballOtS-0rc such things votes? Do they express a preference in the manner required by law II not, they have no validity whatsoever, cannot be cnst. cannot be counted A uOu-OfiiCial ballot Is not ballot at all; it is not simply m illegal bnllOt-it Is void ballot lt a nOn-OffiClal ballot cannot be cast. it certainly cannot be counted. 1T the nOn-OffiClal ballots from ChOgEiung arc Co be counted. then why not count all non-orficial ballots? And if this is to be done, what Is the necessity CT any official ballots?
 Undoubtedly there are many cases which hold that the CaOvasSinE Board has no authority to count the ballots. to even look at them, to even hear their voices. hut they are nl cases where the ballots arc no part of the Return Co be Canyn ssCd--with us they are, and be- | ing a part of the Return it is just as such the duty Of the Canvassing Board Co canvass them as it is Co canvass any other papers or things constituting the
 Tn arriving at the result of an
 election tho CanvassinE Board is not
 tO consider the judges certificate
 alone, or any constituent of the rec
 turns as a controlling force. but all
 are to be considered
 Patton v People. G2 Ill.,. App. GIT.
 And so our CanyaSsing Board iS not authorized by any statute Go accord moro importance to the certificate of the board than tO the register of votes or the baIlots-aU of these are a pnrt Ot one return-thcy all come tO the Canvassing Board in one and the same envelope from one and the same source. ! vOUChCd for by the same pcrSOns-all are of equal authenticity and import anCc, and in this case, all say one and l the same thing in the same language.
 When the Canvassng Board saw this return it was it's plain duty Co reject it because it showed on it's face that there had been no election held at ChoEgiung This would involve no act Of diSCTCtiOn--it would be but Co obey the plain terms Of the law. for
 Where election returns arc false
 upon thCir face and show reckless
 disregard of the terms of statute
 they should be disregordcd alto-
 eye. 3SD
 In State y MCElrOy 32 Am S. R. 1