Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1867-10-17

! SHELBY 60 NS1R CC
TON or TIE REGLSI,R y La W
The Republican candidate for Clerk o
Shsiby county received majority of the
votes cast. but rs the tickets used in one
township hal & printed heading, showing
their party character, the judges of the
election threw thcul out, thus giving q
small majority to the Copperhead caldi-
date. This viii furnish an opportunity TO
obtain judicial construction of the sec
tion of the registry law under which these
ballots were thrown out, after having been
received and deposited in the box by the
proper officer. The tenth section OF the
law reads as follows:
/ That all ballots which may ba cast at
any election in this State shall be written
! or printed on plain white paper. without
any distinguishing mark or establishment
thereon except the nalEes of the candidates
and the Office for which they are voted for.
and inspectors of elections shall refuse all
ballots offered of any other description !:
/ PrOrided. that nothing herein contained
/ shall disQualify the voter from writing his
own name on the back thereof"
| 1he question arises here, whether an in
! spector after having received ballot.
printed on plain white paper, as provided
/ by law, can legally refuse TO count it for
the candidate named? II cOlored ticket
is offered by voter, the law makes it the
duty ofthe Inspector TO refuse il. If il has
device upon ii visible TO the inspector
when offered. he must reject it. In these
cases the voter is prevented from casting
ballot not in conformity with the law.
but is not subjected to the loss OF bis vote.
He my, on being advised Of the defect,
procure another ticket without such dis
| tinguishing mark, and vote that. The bal
lot is to be refused iChen Ofcred, end
there is no warrant in the law for throwing
it out or refusing to count it after il has
been received.
| Election laws are not, and should not be
so sirictlytonstrued as to deprive voters
of their rights upon technical objections.
The 9th section of The election law of I $50
is still in force, not repealed by the registry
law, and that provides that ''no ticket
shall be lost for want of form, if the board
of judges can determine. to their satisfac-
ton, the person voted for and the Office in
tended
Another section of that law. which is
still in force, provides that the inspector
shall put the ticket unopened ntothe bal
lot box. He cannot. therefore, see what is
inside of it until the counting takes place,
and il is too late then to refuse the vote,
for it has already been received and theivo-
tiers name recorded.
The object Of the tenth section of the
registry law was to prevent the party char
acter of the ticket from being known by
the color, or by any device upon the out
size thereof, and it Is made the duty of the
inspector to refuse all such ballots when
presented by voter. A party designation
on the face Of ticket, which can not be
seen when the ballot is folded, does not
come within the mischief intended to be
remedied, and, it seems to rs, does not jus
tify an inspector in refusing to- count it az
ter it has been received At all events. the
question should be judicially settled, and
we hope the candidate in shelby county,
who loses by the strict construction which
the law is reputcd TO have received there,
will bring it before the proper tribunals for
dccision--Ilsd. Jour.