ed 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. If he
refuse to take the oath, or to answer fully, his vote is to be
rejected; but if he answers fully, the inspectors are required to
point out to him the qualifications, if any, in which he shall
appear to them to be deficient. If he still persists in his right
to vote, and the challenge is not withdrawn, the inspectors are
required to administer to him the general oath, in which he states
in detail, and swears, that he possesses all the qualifications the
Constitution and laws require the voter to possess. _If he refuse
to take the oath, his vote shall be rejected._ Is not the inference
irresistible, that, if he take the oath, it shall be received? If
his vote is to be rejected after he takes the oath, why not reject
it before? _As I construe the statute, the inspectors have no
discretion left them in such a case_ (where the person offering to
vote is not shown by a record to have been convicted of a crime, or
by his own oath to be interested in a bet upon the election,) _but
must deposit the ballot in the box, whatever they may believe or
know of the want of qualifications of the voter. They are required
to act upon the evidence which the statute prescribes, and have no
judicial power to pass upon the question of its truth or falsehood;
nor can they act upon their own opinion or knowledge._"

These views were concurred in by all the Judges. _Denio_, J., who wrote
a dissenting opinion in the case, concurred with the other Judges as to
the powers and duties of inspectors.

The defendants, then, have not in the least violated any law of the
State of New York. They performed their duty according to the statute
and in accordance with the decision of the highest court of the State,
and in acco