FLORIDA. 



ehua County made a canvass embracing re- 

 turns from all the precincts in the county, 

 whicli was tiled in the Clerk's office of tin- sii- 

 jircnie Court. The canvassers conclude their 

 certificate with this statement: "We certify 

 that the precinct returns are so irregular, false, 

 and fraudulent that we are unable to determine 

 what the true vote of Alachun County is for 

 Representative in Congress and for members 

 of the Assembly." The returns made by the 

 inspectors were canvassed, and the names for 

 whom the votes purport to have been cast are 

 ^ivt-u precisely as they appeared in the inspec- 

 tors' certificates for Representatives in Con- 

 gress: Noble A. Hull, 1,178; Horatio Bisbee, 

 7:>~> ; Horatio Bisbee, Jr., 751 ; Horatio Bisby, 

 Jr., 68; Horache Bisbee, 191. 



The decision of the Court, rendered in Janu- 

 ary, 1879, on a demurrer of the relator to ob- 

 jections of the respondents, embraced the fol- 

 lowing points: 



1. It is not a valid objection to tho jurisdiction of 

 State courts in mandamus proceedings, relating to the 

 canvass of election returns, that the office attccted is 

 that of Representative in Congress. 



2. A return by election inspectors, in which tho 

 votes cast for a person are given twice or repeated, 

 constitutes no ground for refusing to include such re- 

 turn hi the statement and certificate by the county 

 canvassers, it being on its face a mere verbal repeti- 

 tion, and not an attempt to misstate the votes cast. 

 The fact that the statement sent to the Clerk contained 

 such repetition, while that sent to tho County Judge 

 did not contain it, does not create such a variance be- 

 tween them as to authorize their rejection. 



3. When the jurat to the oath ot inspectors of elec- 

 tion is not signed, or when tho inspeetore have not 

 been sworn t but have acted as such and made proper 

 returns, their acts are valid and their return of elec- 

 tion should be counted. 



4. A statement in the caption of inspectors' returns 

 forwarded to the Judgo that the election was held 

 under an act of 1868, and the amendments thereto 

 (without giving tho dates of the amendments), while 

 that sent to the Clerk gave the date of the act and also 

 of the amendments, does not render the returns in- 

 definite, uncertain, contradictory, or in any sense re- 

 pugnant to each other, b,ut they are regular and con- 

 formable to law. The difference is immaterial. 



5. County canvassers can not look beyond the in- 

 spectors' returns, except to determine their genuine- 

 ness as being signed by inspectors appointed or elected 

 as such of the precinct. Ballots found in a ballot-box 



vassing election returns, the Justice becomes a mem- 

 ber of the Board of County Canvassers, and is, like 

 tho other members, amenable to the writ of mandamus 

 to control or correct their action. 



Demurrer sustained. Judgment for relator. 



Again, on the application of Mr. H. Bisbee, 

 Jr., the Supreme Court issued another per- 

 emptory writ to the Board of State Canvass- 

 ers, being the Secretary of Stnte, the Comp- 

 troller, and the Attorney-General, command- 

 ing them to reconvene and canvass and count 

 the true returns, etc., etc. The respondents 

 filed a demurrer to the alternative writ on the 

 ground that the relator did not show that ho 

 was twenty-five years of ago, and that the writ 

 showed that tho return from Madison County 



did not represent tho true vote cast. The 

 ( 'inirt overruled the demurrer, and decided tU 

 following points: 



1. It is not good ground of demurrer to an alter- 

 native writ of iimmlumtm directing a canvass of vote* 

 for Representative in Congress, that the rclator doe* 

 ii'.f show that ho is qualified to tuke the office: tbo 

 question of eligibility belonging exclusively to Con- 

 gress to determine. 



2. Tho statute authorizes the Board of State Can- 

 vassers to lay aside and not include in their canraiv 

 tho county returns or papers purporting to be countv 

 returns, when it appears to them that i>uch returns 

 are " so irregular, false, or fraudulent " that the Board 

 can not " determine the true vote " for any office, i. e., 

 the vote actually cast. The law requires the county 

 canvassers to canvass the precinct n turns received on 

 tho sixth day after tho election, whether the preciuct 

 returns from all the precincts arc then hi or not ; and 

 further requires tho County Board to certify the result 

 of this canvass to the State canvassers, to be included 

 hi the State canvass, unless they are shown or appear 

 to be of the character above dttaibed. The returns 

 from one county were shown to have been complete, 

 except that no return hud been made to the County 

 Board of votes cast at one poll, and no vote from that 

 poll was included hi the county canvass and return to 

 the State Board ; and for this reason the State Board 

 did not include the vote returned from that county, 

 on ihe ground that it was BO irregular or false that it 

 did not show the " true vote." Upon this state of 

 facts, it was Tield : That the county return was in no 

 wise so irregular or false, within the meaning of the 

 law, that the State canvassers could not determine 

 the "true vote" from such return; that the countv 

 return, being genuine, regular, and strictly legal in all 

 respects, and required to be made for the purposes of 

 the State canvass, and included only votes actually 

 cast, could not be condemned as " false," but was a 

 return expressly required by law to be counted. 



Mr. Bisbee next applied to the Governor to 

 issue the certificate of election to him. Gov- 

 ernor Drew replied that it was impossible, as 

 he had already issued and signed a certificate 

 to another person as member of Congress from 

 the district. Subsequently Mr. Bisbee insti- 

 tuted mandamus proceedings in the Supreme 

 Court against the Governor to compel him to 

 issue the writ as requested. The counsel of 

 the Governor moved to quash the alternative 

 writ, on the ground that the Court had no 

 power to issue it against the Governor. This 

 motion brought squarely before the Court the 

 question of the Governor's independence of 

 the judicial department in the performance 

 of his executive duties. The decision of the 

 Court, delivered by Chief-Justice Crandall, em- 

 braced the following points : 



1. The courts have no power to control the action 

 of tho Governor hi the discharge of any duty pertain- 

 ing to his office under the laws of the State. 



2. Tho issuing of acoiiuuiii>n or a certificate of 

 election, required by law to U- issued l>y the Gov- 

 ernor, though ministerial in its nature, is yet un exec- 

 utive act pertaining to his office as the C"hief Magis- 

 trate of the State. 



8. Each department of the government of the State 

 is independent of the other in the performance of its 

 own duty, and one can not control the other in such 

 performance without destroying this independent-. 



4. The person of the Governor is subject to the 

 process of the courts only in reference to private acts 

 and acts not pertaining to executive functions im- 

 posed by the Constitution or laws. 



5. In respect to hia executive duties as Governor, 



