Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/176

 RESORT TO THE JUDICIARY

161

later on the nature of the power assumed by the court. On issuing the above injunction the court announced that it expressly reserved full jurisdiction of the cause to the end that it might make and enforce all other and fur ther orders to secure a full, fair and free election, for the safe preservation of the election records, together with the power to summarily punish any persons violating the court's injunction and order and to make other orders in the premises. The election was held and notwithstand ing the injunction great frauds were com mitted as in previous elections. After the election the court in the exercise of its re served jurisdiction tried numerous election judges, clerks and policemen for contempt of its orders and punished them. The con tempt established against such persons com monly consisted in knowingly aiding and abetting fraudulent voting, the substitution of fraudulent votes for valid ones, in inter ference with supreme court watchers or the exclusion of the clerk designated by the republican minority judge of election. A great portion of the court's time for nearly two months after election was devoted to the hearing of evidence in the trial of these contempt cases. The court further exer cised its reserved jurisdiction by way of direction and control of the election com mission or canvassing board during the counting, abstracting and certifying of the election returns. It appointed its own watchers to keep watch over the election records and returns and to be present while the canvassing of the same proceeded; it commanded that the returns be not un sealed until opened for the canvas; it ordered the commission to make the canvas publicly, and to give prior notification to the demo cratic and republican parties, and to permit at least two representatives of each party to be present to watch the canvas; where discrepancies occurred in the returns it 1 MUls Ann. Stat. of Colorado, Vol. 3. sec. directed the commission as to how it should 1625 x. proceed; it enjoined the commission from
 * Mills Ann. Stat. of Colorado, sec. 1598.

examine the poll books, tally lists and registration books, and in case of challenge to compare the description of the proposed voter with that given in the registration books, in such manner however as not to interfere with the fair, honest discharge of the duties of the election judges and clerks; it commanded the election judges to follow strictly the law in regard to the appointment of clerks of election, and that in compliance with the law they appoint one clerk of opposite political faith from that held by the other clerk, and "in order to more effectually carry into effect this order the said judges are required to appoint, as one election clerk, the person designated" by the republican election judge. The "supreme court watchers" were duly appointed and performed their duties. Attention should be called to the two-fold nature of this injunction. In the main it commands the performance in a general way and specifically of duties devolving upon the several defendants by the election laws. In two interesting respects however the order goes further. In the first place no provision is made in the election laws nor in any other legislative enactment for the appointment by the court of watchers of election or for their presence in the polling place. On the contrary the law specifically provides that "no person other than the election officers and the watchers provided by law, and those admitted for the purpose of voting, as here inafter provided, shall be permitted within such guard rail, except by authority of the judges of election, and then only when necessary to keep order and enforce the law." * In the second place the election laws invest the judges of election with the power to appoint the clerks,2 whereas the court required the judges to appoint as one clerk a person selected by one of the judges. In these two respects last mentioned the order is significant when we come to consider