State ex rel. Crawford v. Norris

• Decision Date: 29 June 1893
• Citation: 37 Neb. 299,55 N.W. 1086
• Parties: STATE EX REL. CRAWFORD v. NORRIS, JUDGE.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

37 Neb. 299

55 N.W. 1086

STATE EX REL. CRAWFORD

v.NORRIS, JUDGE.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

June 29, 1893.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The act of congress approved February 8, 1887, entitled “An act to provide for the allotment of lands in severalty to Indians on the various reservations and to extend the protection of the laws of the United States and the territories over the Indians, and for other purposes,” is not in conflict with article 1, § 8, of the constitution of the United States, which provides that congress shall have power “to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.”

2. By the provisions of said act, all Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, to whom allotments of land in severalty have been made under the provisions of said law, or other law or treaty, and all Indians, born as aforesaid, who have voluntarily taken up their residence in the United States, separate and apart from any tribe of Indians therein, and adopted the habits of civilized life, are made citizens of the United States, and such Indians residing in this state are citizens thereof.

3. The actual issuance or receipt by an Indian of a patent for lands allotted to him under the act is not necessary to constitute him a citizen of the United States. When he has accepted the land allotted, taken possession thereof, and otherwise complied with the law, he becomes entitled to his patent, and his citizenship attaches.

4. An objection that the “convention,” “primary meeting,” “committee,” or “electors” nominating a candidate for a public office had not legal authority to make such nomination must be made before the election, and in the manner provided by section 136, c. 26, of the Compiled Statutes; and if not so made the legal authority of such “convention,” etc., to make such nomination--the certificate thereof being in an apparent conformity with the provisions of the election law--will, in the absence of fraud, be conclusively presumed.

5. By the provisions of section 141, c. 26, of the Compiled Statutes, a candidate may make objections to the ballots as printed by the county clerk, and invoke the power of the courts to correct any error or omission in the name or description of his competitor; but, if such candidate neglects to make such objection until after the election, he cannot then object to the result because of any error in the political designation of his competitor on said ballots, without a showing of fraud, and that the error, by deceiving the electors, prevented a full and fair expression of the voters' will.

6. Such a construction of an election law as would result in the disfranchisement of large bodies of voters because of an error of some public officer should not be adopted, where the language of the statute is susceptible of any other.

7. Innocent irregularities of election officers, which are free of fraud, and have not prevented a free and fair expression of the popular choice, will not vitiate the result of an election, unless the legislature has expressly so declared.

Commissioners' decision.

Original action in quo warranto, in the name of the state, at the relation of J. C. Crawford, against W. F. Norris, to try title to the office of judge of the eighth judicial district of Nebraska. Judgment for defendant.

Geo. H. Hastings, Atty. Gen., M. McLaughlin, Barnes & Eames, W. E. Gantt, and W. F. Bryant, for relator.

Barnes & Tyler, C. C. McNish, Uriah Bruner, and Jay & Beck, for respondent.

RAGAN, C.

This is an action of quo warranto, brought by the relator, J. C. Crawford, against W. F. Norris, the present judge of the eighth judicial district. The material allegations of the information are that at the general election held on the 3d day of November, 1891, in the eighth judicial district of the state of Nebraska, the whole number of votes cast for judge of the district court, as canvassed and returned by the board of canvassers, was 7,468, of which the defendant is alleged to have received 3,775 and the relator 3,693, and that upon the canvass of said votes said defendant had an apparent majority of 82 votes, and was thereupon declared duly elected to said office, and received a certificate of election to the same. That the county clerks of the counties of Cunning, Cedar, and Stanton caused the name of the defendant to be printed on the sample and official ballots as follows: “W. F. Norris, Independent and Republican,”--without authority, and in direct violation of the law, as the said Norris had not been nominated by any convention or primary meeting representing a political party which at the last election before such convention cast 1 per centum of the vote polled in said judicial district. That at the last election held prior to said nomination there was no candidate voted for, for any office in said judicial district, representing the political party and designated on the ballots as “Independent.” That 500 ballots were cast in said counties at the November election, 1891, for the said defendant, on which ballots he was designated as candidate for the “Independent” party, which said 500 votes are part of the total of 3,775 votes cast and canvassed for the said defendant. That at the time of the holding of the convention aforesaid there was no party in said judicial district by the name of “Independent,” and the printing of the defendant's name on the ticket, representing him as “Independent,” was calculated to, and did, deceive a large number of voters. That the county clerk of Thurston county caused the name of the defendant to be designated on the sample and official ballots as candidate for judge of said district as follows: “W. F. Norris, Republican and Independent,”--without the said defendant having been nominated by any convention representing any political party known or designated as “Republican Independent.” That 293 of such ballots were cast in said Thurston county for the said defendant, and were canvassed and counted as a part of the said 3,775 votes alleged to have been received by said defendant. That the printing of the defendant's name on the ballots as aforesaid was calculated to deceive the voters, by making it appear that the defendant was the candidate and nominee of the “Republican Independent” party, when in fact he was not. That the county clerk of Dakota county caused the name of the defendant to be printed on the sample and official ballots as follows: “W. F. Norris, People's Independent and Republican,”--notwithstanding there was no certificate on file in the office of said clerk certifying that said Norris had been nominated by any convention representing a political party by the name of “People's Independent.” That the printing of the defendant's name on the ballots as aforesaid was calculated to, and did, deceive the voters in said county, by representing that he was the candidate of the “People's Independent” party, when in fact he was not, and that 200 such votes were cast, counted, and canvassed for said defendant in said county, as a part of said 3,775 votes alleged to have been received by said defendant. That at said election there were cast in Omaha precinct and Black Bird precinct, in Thurston county, 127 illegal votes, and that in Perry precinct and in Winnebago precinct, in said Thurston county, there were cast 206 illegal votes. That said illegal votes so cast in said four precints were cast by persons, members of the Omaha and Winnebago tribes of Indians, who were then under the charge of, and in the care, custody, and control of, an Indian agent, and that none of said Indians who voted at said election in said four precincts were citizens of the United States or this state, and were not qualified electors, on the 3d day of November, 1891. That said Omaha and Black Bird precincts, in said Thurston county, are a part and parcel of the Omaha Indian reservation, and that the polling places where the said Omaha Indians voted were located on said reservation. That said Perry and Winnebago precincts are a part and parcel of the Winnebago reservation, and that the polling places where said Winnebago Indians voted were located on said Winnebago Indian reservation.

The answer of the defendant, so far as we notice it, alleges: The defendant denied that the persons named in the relator's information as Indians were at the time of the election members of the Omaha and Winnebago tribes of Indians, and averred the fact to be that there were then no such tribes of Indians, and that their tribal relations had been dissolved, and that all of said persons so named in said information as Indians, and who voted in said Perry, Winnebago, Omaha, and Black Bird precincts, in said Thurston county, were on the 3d day of November, 1891, citizens of the United States, and qualified voters of the state of Nebraska. That all of said Indians were born within the territorial limits of the United States, and on the 3d day of November, 1891, were male persons more than 21 years of age, and before said election each and every of said persons had severed his tribal relations, and had adopted the habits of civilized life, and lived separate and apart from any tribe of Indians; and each of said Indians, before such election, had applied for and had received his allotment of land in severalty, in accordance with an act of congress approved February 8, 1887, commonly known and called the “Dawes Bill.” That said defendant was duly nominated for district judge of the eighth judicial district of the state of Nebraska by the Republican judicial convention of said district as candidate for district judge at the election to be held November 3, 1891. That he was also nominated by the Independent judicial convention of said district, held at Wakefield, Neb., as candidate for judge of said district at said election. That certificates of each of said nominations, in due form of law, were duly filed in the office of the clerks of the several counties composing said...