,
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:

"The course required by the statute, to be pursu