State v. Mason

• Decision Date: 04 January 1907
• Citation: 45 Wash. 234,88 P. 126
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. HARVEY v. MASON et al.

88 P. 126

45 Wash. 234

STATE ex rel. HARVEY v. MASON et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 4, 1907

Appeal from Superior Court, Ferry County; R. S. Steiner, Judge.

Mandamus by the state on the relation of E. G. Harvey to compel L. H Mason and others as mayor and common council of the city of Republic to canvass election returns of a municipal election. From a judgment granting the writ, respondents appeal. Affirmed.

G. V. Alexander, for appellants.

W. T Beck and Alfred M. Craven, for respondent.

HADLEY J.

This is a proceeding in mandamus to compel the mayor and city council of the city of Republic to canvass the election returns of an election held in said city on the 5th day of December, 1905. The election was for the selection of municipal officers, and was held on the day provided by law for the election of officers in cities of the third class, to which class the city of Republic belongs. The city council neglected to cause notice of the election to be given, and no one of the steps required of the mayor and council by law as a preliminary to the election was taken. On the 2d day of December a mass convention of citizens of the city was held for the purpose of making nominations for the various city offices to be filled at said election. A chairman and secretary were duly appointed, nominations were made, and a certificate thereof was filed with the city clerk the same day, no other certificate of nominations being filed. The city clerk refused to cause ballots to be printed; whereupon the chairman and secretary of said mass convention, in conjunction with a number of other citizens, demanded of the clerk a certified list of the nominations filed with him, and the same was thereupon furnished by the clerk. The said chairman and secretary, in conjunction with other citizens then caused ballots to be printed from said certificate for each of the wards of the city in the form provided by law. The ballots so printed were delivered to the city clerk, who on the day of the election, previous to the hour of 9 o'clock, a. m., took said ballots for each of the three wards, and placed them in each of the three ballot boxes of the city respectively, but he did not count the number of tickets. The clerk then locked the boxes, retained one of them, and delivered two of them to other individuals, and these and the clerk carried them to places in the respective wards which were afterwards used for polling places at said election. Before delivering the boxes to the two other persons, the clerk administered an oath to each of the other two persons to the effect that they would safely keep and return the ballot boxes to the city clerk. Each of the ballot boxes contained, together with said ballots, two poll books or tallying books, together with a certified list of the registered voters in each of the wards. The city clerk took no part in causing the ballots to be printed, but in fact there were two ballots and more than that number for each registered voter in said wards, delivered at the several polling places. On the morning of the election, the citizens congregated at the several polling places, and, inasmuch as the city council had neglected to appoint election officers, the qualified voters proceeded to appoint such officers as are required by law. The election was conducted under these officers, and under the preliminary circumstances hereinbefore stated, and the said officers made their returns to the city council, who refused to canvass the same. The above are the more material facts gleaned from the statement of facts in the case. The superior court granted the writ requiring the mayor and councilmen to canvass the returns and de clare the result, and they have appealed.

It will be seen from the above statement that the mayor and councilmen wholly neglected to discharge the duties...