Year: 1875

alton Of the Votes.


The ordinary powers and duties of ne.


turning officers of elections are ministerial,


not judicial in any sense of the term. The y


are not authorized to administer oaths, and


can not do so unless expressly authorized


by law.


Our election law Of 1879 is no exception


to the above rule, except the powers con-


ferred on the board by sections three and


twenty-six in regard to the inquiry into acts


that produce intimidation. This last is a


special power conferred on the board en-


tlreiy independent of their general and Or


dinary powers.


Ordinarily returning officers


l. To see that the papers returned to


them have been forwarded by the person


properly authorized by law to do SO.


2. That the papers returned to them are


in proper legal form. If they find these


formalities have been complied with, then


they count and compile the vote.


Acting on the above principles, the Re-


turning Board could not legally act on any


returns that had not been forwarded to it
1


the parish or ward, as in the cases of De


Soto. Terrebonne and Iberia.


| The board, not being a court, nor author


lied to administer oaths, and having no
| judicial powers, could not go into the inves-
tigation of the verify of the returns made


by any other person than the one author
lied by law. When made by the officer
authorized by law they impart legal verify;
that is, that the documents returned were
genuine, and made by the proper persons.


The above being the correct principle, it
| follows that the board could inquire
whether the person for yarding the returns
| to it was the legal super visor of registra-
tion. This evidence is furnished by the
Secretary of State. The only case in which
this principle came up was in the case Of
the parish Of Winn, when it was decided
that the person making the returns to the
board was not supervisor.


If the above positions be correct, the next
question would be, what forms of law must
be complied with to justify the board in
counting and compiling the vote, although
there was general ia lure in this case to
comply with the forms of law in holding,
conducting and making returns Of the eIec-
tion-so much 80 that in quite number of
cases nothing was before the Returning
Board except unsigned tally sheets. Yet
the board determined to count and compile
the vote on such evidence, unless it was
shown that fraud or intimidation prevailed
at such poll. This, tho Republican counsel
contended, was incorrect, on the ground
that if the forms of law had not been sub
stantially complied with, that the poll
should not be counted and compiled, as the
guards thrown around the election to pre-
vent fraud had not been complied with, and
the board had no authority to admit it.
Almost every poll thrown out by the board
under the head of intimidation was in cases
where the essential forms of law in holding
and conducting the election had not been
complied with.


1t may here be stated that any duty re-
quired of the board, except those under the
third and twenty sixth sections, may be
enforced by the writ of mandamus as all
merely ministerial acts may be, if the board
fails or refuses to perform any of them, and
our law under this writ gives the amplest
power to the courts.


the board under sections three and twenty.
six Of the election law. The duties of the
board under these sections are not minis
terial, but the board is authorized to take
and hear evidence and pass on the evidence,
which clothes them with such discretionary
controlled by the courts, through the writ Of
mandamus or other legal process; it is very
doubtful whether the board is authorized
under this provision OF law to admin
lister oaths. We think it is not but that it
would have to act on documents or affi-
davits verified before officers authorized to
perform such acts.


Has the board full power to examine into
all the violations of law which produces in
timidation? Have they jurisdiction OF this
subject ratione mnteria, or is the bO ard re-
stricted to such cases as may be reported
by the supervisors OF registration or COM
missioners of election according to the pro-
visions of section twenty-six9


1t is evidently the intention of the law
that every unlawful act that produces in
timidation should be inquired into by the |
board; there can be no doubt but that the |
if it is brought to their attention in the !
manner pointed out in section twenty-six; |
then it being the intention of the law |
that all such cases should be passed on by |
the board, and that they might be brought !
before the board by the supervisors or COM
missioners. The question follows that if |
the supervisors or commissioners should |
fail to do go or that they were prevented by |
force, fraud or intimidation from doing go,
or that the intimidating act was not com.
mitted in their presence, and that they |
could not do so, and such illegal act or acts |
that produce intimidation should be brought |
before the board in any other manner to |
satisfy the board the act should be inquired |
into. Would it not have the right, and |
would it not be the duty of the board to
inquire into its We submit that the board |
would have that right, and that it would be
its duty to do SO.


Tho provisions Of sections three and |
twenty six, We submit, are merely direc- |
terry, making it the duty of the board, |
when such facts are brought before it, to
examine and pass on them, but that these |
sections do not exclude the board from |
receiving notice of such acts in any other
satisfactory manner. The board has jurisdic-
ton ratione materia over the whole sub |