|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1876,] OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES 1499
self undertook to administer, and did administer an oath to
the Judges of Election, the only one they took at all; and
that the oath which he so administered, was not the oath
prescribed by law, but another one of his own concoction, or
at best an oath mutilated and abbreviated in many most im-
portant respects. This action of the Board is ascribable
either to gross and culpable ignorance of the law, or, which
is more probable, to unworthy motives. They were not
anxious, as their whole course shows, to remind the judges
by administering to them the full and proper oath of their
specific duties, but they were anxious to keep all knowledge
of their appointments from the public, and within their own
office. This explanation is in keeping with their admitted
and persistent refusal of information regarding these appoint-
ments to the public prints, their sworn reason for which, be-
ing that it would probably have caused a great deal of trou-
ble and unnecessary objection and stir, (see Major Gilmore's
testimony,) it is also in keeping with the fact tbat after hav-
ing promised the Committee of the Reform party, to consult
with them in regard to the appointment of Reform Judges,
and to give one Reform Judge to each precinct, they violated
their promise, cut loose from the Committee and its recom-
mendations, superseded, without proper cause, many men
already agreed upon, and yet kept the notices of such changes
from the parties removed, until the very morning of the elec-
tion, November 2d, 1875. But, however, their action is to
be accounted for, it is indefensible, and these conclusions are
unavoidably reached from a consideration of the law and the
evidence before this House.
First. That the law was violated in regard to the boxes for
rejected ballots.
Second. That the official oath required by law was not ad-
ministered to the Judges of Election.
Third. That the oath which was administered to them was
administered by a person entirely without authority so to do.
Fourth. That the returns themselves are consequently de-
fective, from the want of a certificate of the oath from a proper
person.
Fifth. That the law expressly declares either one of the
above detects to bo sufficient to make any election in the City
of Baltimore void.
Sixth. That the responsibility for this state of things rests
entirely upon the Police Commissioners, and shows the
Board, as then constituted, to have been unworthy of public
confidence, or of being entrusted with the execution of laws
vital to the general welfare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
