And the only judicial
discretion vested in them is, to determine whether any question put
to the person offering to vote, has or has not, been fully
answered. If the questions put have been fully answered, and such
answers discover the fact, that the person offering to vote is not
a qualified voter, yet if he persists in his claim to vote it is
imperative upon the inspectors to administer to him the general
oath, and if taken, to receive the vote and deposit the same in the
ballot box._"
_Selden_, J., who wrote in the same case, examines this question with
great care and reaches the same conclusion. He says:
"The course required by the statute, to be pursued where the right
of any person to vote is challenged, cannot be reconciled with any
discretionary power of rejection vested in the inspectors. (Citing
the statute as above quoted.) The inspectors are, first, to
administer what is called the preliminary oath, requiring the
person offering the vote to answer such questions as shall be put
to him touching his place of residence and qualifications as an
elector. The statute then mentions several questions which are to
be addressed to him by the inspectors, and authorizes such other
questions as may tend to test his qualifications as a voter.
Pages:
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178