this election, and for the last four months a resident of this County; that you have been for thirty days next preceding this election a resident of this Assembly district (or Senate or Congressional district or districts, ward, town, village or city from which the officer is to be chosen for whom said person offers to vote); that you are now a resident of this town (or ward, as the case may be) and of the election district in which you now offer to vote, and that you have not made any bet or wager, and are not directly or indirectly interested in any bet or wager depending upon the result of this election, and that you have not voted at this election.’”

     “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.  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: