'"
"Sec. 18. Prescribes the form of oath to be administered to colored
men."
"Sec. 19. If any person shall refuse to take the oath so tendered, his
vote shall be rejected."
The defendants performed their duty strictly and fully according to the
statute.
The persons offering to vote were challenged; the defendants
administered the preliminary oath to them; all the questions required by
the statute were answered fully and truly; the challenge was still
insisted on; the general oath was administered by the defendants to
them; they took that oath, and every word contained in it was true in
their case. The inspectors had no alternative. They could not reject the
votes.
This statute has been construed by the Court of Appeals of this State in
the case of _The People vs. Pease, 27 N.Y. 45_.
In that case it is held, that inspectors of election have no authority
by statute to reject a vote except in three cases: (1) after a refusal
to take the preliminary oath, or (2) fully to answer any questions put,
or (3) on refusal to take the general oath.
_Davies_ J., in his opinion after an examination of the provisions of
the statute says:
"_It is seen, therefore, that the inspectors have no authority, by
statute, to reject a vote except in the three cases: after refusal
to take the preliminary oath, or fully to answer any questions put,
or on refusal to take the general oath.
Pages:
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177