Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1865-1872, 1867-10-18
Shelby County- Construction of the
ReqistrY Law.

The Republican candidate for clerk Of
Shelby county received majority Of the
votes cast, but as the tickets used in one
township had printed heading, showing
their party character, the judges Of the cleo
ton threw them out. thus giving a small
majority to the CCpperhead candidate.
This will furnish an opportunity to obtain
judicial construction Of the section 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 fol-
lows:
That all ballots which may be cast at
any election in this State shall be written
or printed on plain white paper, without
any distinguishing mark or embelIishme mt
thereon except the names Of the candidates
and the Office for which they are voted for,
aud inspectors Of elections shall refuse all
ballots sofered Of any other descriptions
Prorided, that nothing herein contained
shall disqualify the voter FROM writing his
own name on.ihe back thereof"
The 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 il for
the candidates named? If a colored ticket
is offered by voter. the law makes il the
duty OF tho inspector to refuse it. If it
has device upon Invisible to the inspector
when offered, be must reject it. In these
cases tine voter Is prevented from casting
ballot not in conformity with the law,
but is not subjected to the loss of his vote.
lie may, on being advised of the defect,
procure another ticket without such dIstin-
gushing mark. and vote that. The ballot
Is TO he refused ,oten altered, and there is
no warrant in the law for throwing it out
or refusing to count it after it has been re-
cei,ed. 80.
- Election Tvs are net and should not be SO
strictly construed as to deprive voters of
their rights upon technical objections.
The 9th section of the election law OF
1852 is sill III force, not repealed by the
registry law, and that provides that mo
ticket shall be lost for want of form, If IL Q
board ofjudges can determine, to their sat
isiaction, the person voted for aud the OF
fee intended"
Another section of that law, which is
still in force, provides that the inspector
shall put the ticket unopened into the ballot
box. lie cannot, therefore, see what is in
side of il until the counting takes place,
aud it is too late then to refuse the vote,
for it has already been received aud the
voters name recorded.
The object OF the teath section of the
registry law was to prevent the party char.
scter Of the ticket from being known by
the color, OF by suy device upon the out
side thereof, and II is made the duty OF the
inspector to refuse all such ballots when
presented by voter. A party designation
on the face of the ticket, which can not be
seen when the ballot is folded, does not
come within the mischief Intended to DO
remedied and, IL seems to us, does not
justify an inspector ia refusing to count
Il after IL has been received. At all events,
the question should be judicially settled,
and We hope the candidate 10 Shelby coun.
ty, who loses by the strict construction
which The lsw.ia repuied 10 have received
ihers, will bring j, before the proper tribu-
'nals for decision