The only question which a board of canvassers, in the absence of statutory provision conferring other than ordinary powers, can entertain, is one going to the authenticity of the returns.1 If on their face they are regular, and made in compliance with law, they cannot be rejected even though the canvassers may be certain that monstrous frauds have been committed.2 In The People ex rel. Fuller v. Hilliard, reported in 29 Illinois Rep., 410, the canvassers rejected the returns from a county, because the affidavits of the judges and clerks were not signed in the poll books accompanying the returns. The court held that such objection was of no force, it being immaterial, so far as the validity of the returns was concerned, whether the election officers were sworn or not. "They were acting colore officiï in the performance of appropriate acts, and are presumed to have been well appointed and qualified." The defect being a mere formal one is open to correction. In a notable case reported in Vol. 4, of Wisconsin Reports, in which the functions and powers of election canvassers were considered, several important questions Freeland, 10 Missouri, 629; State v. Harrison, 38 Mo., 540; State v. Rodman, 43 Mo., 256; Bacon v. York, 26 Maine, 491; Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Minn., 107; O'Farrell v. Colby, 2 Minn., 180; Marshall v. Kerns, 2 Swan (Tenn.), 68. 1. People ex rel. Fuller v. Hilliard, 29 Illinois, 413. "They" (the canvassers) "may probably judge whether the returns are in due form, but, after that, they can only compute the votes cast for the several candidates, and declare the result." 2. Attorney General v. Barstow, 4 Wisconsin, 749. 3. See People v. Cook, 14 Barbour, 259, supra. arose. The proceeding was an information in the nature of a quo warranto, to try the title to the governorship of the state. The report of the case occupies nearly three hundred pages, and is remarkable for the propositions which were advanced and discussed. The board of state canvassers undertook to reject some of the votes returned, and at a subsequent meeting, to supplement those originally received with others. As the result of this action, a certificate of election was given to the respondent, who took possession of the gubernatorial office. On the information the point was raised, on behalf of the respondent, that the executive being equally with the judiciary, a co-ordinate branch of the government, the court could not entertain the proceeding. To this proposition, which jumped clear of the question at issue-whether the respondent was the executive-the court refused to accede, saying that the election, not the certificate, confers the right to hold the office; that the duties of the canvassers are purely ministerial; that the court will go behind the certificate to ascertain whether, in granting it, the canvassers have exceeded their duties, and who was legally elected; that while the court has no power to control or interfere with the executive department, it has jurisdiction of the citizen to prevent his usurping an office; and that the office of governor being a civil office, an unlawful intrusion into or usurpation of it, may be tried by the court, and the usurper or intruder ousted. The board of canvassers were held to have exceeded their powers, the certificate was accordingly declared in valid, and a judgment of ouster was entered against the respondent.1 As we have seen, the canvassers have a right to be satisfied of the genuineness of the returns. It does not result from what has been stated that they are compelled to accept anything purporting to be a return; but the returns being genuine, the canvassers cannot, unless authorized by statute, go behind them for any purpose. And in determining as to the form of the returns, they must consider the substance and not be too technical. If there is a substantial compliance with the law it is enough.2 Some of the states have statutes conferring upon the canvassing boards the power to revise the returns, to * ** 1. The Attorney General ex rel, Barkford v. Barstow, 4 Wisconsin R., 567. The court, in deciding its jurisdiction, say: "It is clear, from the provisions of the constitution and the law above cited, that the office of governor is a civil office, that the incumbent of the office is subject to the process of the law, and that proceedings by quo warranto are especially provided to protect all the civil offices of the state from usurpation and intrusion. * Let it still be borne in mind, that this and the like process is the process of the state, not of the court-the mandate of the people, not of the judges; that it is directed to the defendant, not to the executive department; not to dictate or control the action of the department, but to ascertain by what warrant the defendant is in possession of it. And here I may be permitted to repeat, that the higher and more sacred an office created by the constitution may be, the stronger the reason and the greater the necessity for guarding it against unwarrantable intrusion. The minor offices of the state, county or town might be intruded into and usurped for a time, without seriously affecting the public welfare; but a successful usurpation of the highest office of the state is, in truth and in effect, the overthrow of the government itself. If the success continues, the constitution is destroyed, and irresponsible and self-constituted power reigns, riots and ruins." 2. McCrary on Elections, 83. hear evidence, and, in their discretion, to reject such votes as they deem illegal. Texas, Louisiana, Alabama and Florida are examples. It seems, however, an abuse of terms to call boards clothed with such powers "Canvassing Boards." These powers are greatly in excess of the legitimate duty of canvassing the returns, and transform those possessing such revisionary and judicial functions into tribunals for contesting elections. The board of canvassers, having canvassed the returns, computed the votes and adjourned sine die, is functus officio, and cannot reconvene, reconsider its action and supply and correct errors in its proceedings. 1 1. Clark v. Buchanan, 2 Minnesota, 347. 11 |