The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1868-11-02
Decision of Supreme court.
What are Distinguishing Marks on
Election Tickets?
Thc CIaUse Of RSegi try Law
OnEy Applies 40 the Out
side of Tickets.
/" Uniform Only In External Appear.
anc6.'
THE LAW FORB1DS ELECTION OF
FlCERS UNFOLDENGS TICKETS.

i TEHE LAW FORBtDS ELECTION OF
= FACERS ONFOLDHNG TICKETS.
a State of Indiana. In the Supreme Court
8 May term, 1868. On the sth day OF septem
r Present-The Hon. Robert G. Gregory
Chief Justice; Charles A Ray. Jehu L. Ei
= lot, James s. Frazer, Jadges.
, Ia the case of Hiram Druliner VS.. The
state ex rel CaikinS, Prosecuting Attor
Appeal from the Laporte Circuit Court
Came the parties by heir attorneys, ant
the ourts being sufficiently advised IN the
premises, gave the following opinion and
. judgment. pronounced by Elliott, Judge.
, This was AN Information fn tine name o
! the State, on the relation of the Prosecuting
Attorney, against Druliner, the appellant
charging MIN with having usurped an
:. .unla wiuIly fntruded into, and withno d.
Ing the ONCE Of Councilman of the Fourth
Ward OF the CRY Of Laporte, and praying
that he be OuSted theTefrOn, and that Hart
l.. Weaver be entitled thereto. Druiiner
answered by a general denial The case
was tried Oy the Court, who found the de-
fendant guilty, and having overruled a
motion for a new trial, rendered Judgment
l.. weaver fegafIy entitled to hold said
ofMce. The correctness of the finding
OF the court under the facts present
ed by Inc agreement OF the parties,
4 is he only question in the case. The iaeis,
aS agreed upon are as follows: An cleo
tion vas he'd in the city OF. Laporte, on
the 7th day of May, 1867, for the purpose OF
electlng, among other officers. a Council
man for the Fourth Ward of said city that
the candidates at the sand election for said
| oMcs, and no ballots were cast for any
! other person for said office at said g ection;
that said Weaver and Druiiner were both
/ residents of the Fourth Ward, and eligible
3. said once; that one hundred and forty
| four ballots, and no more, cast
| said Office at said election. of which num-
bST ninsty-eight were cast for said Wea-
| yer, and forty-stx for said Druliner. On tie
| facSor inside OF the ballots cat for Wea-
Wtr were printed these wards: 'City Union
| Ticks ct" The ballots were all printed on
l WhitR a Wi nXp
OF said words, nothing was written or
| printed on said ballots, except the names
| OF the candidates and The office they were
Ths ballots were received by the judges
and inspectors OF said election and counted
| by bhem witnout protest or oh ection, and
| the board of canvassers of said election
upon canvassinE the nallots awarded to
said " sayer the customery certificate OF
election: but said DruIIner was exercising
sGhe du, les OF said office. and claimed to do
So by virtue of SAID election. and not
E. IL vas fuftEer agreed that If the ballots
/ SO cAsJ for Weaver should be held Iegal,
| tDen Judgm ent OF custer should be render
/ eh against DTuliner, aud that Weaver
lIhouid be admitted thereto: but if the bal
| illegal, then tudgment should be rendered
| fOr Druitner. The decision of the question
| depends upon the construction to be given
| To lns 23I section OF the registry law of 1887,
| which provides that " all oailoIs which
/ may be cast at any e eetiOn hereafter neId
/ in tniS State shall be printed or written on
plain white paper without any dIsIin-
1 gushing MARKS or other emb -llishments
thereon, except the names OF the candl- /
dates and the office for which ey are
voted for, and inspectors of election shall
| refuse all ballots offered of any other de-
scrlptlon; Provided, Nothing herein shall |
dlsQuaf1fy the voter from writing his
name on the back thereof"
IL is claimed by counsel for the appellant
that the wosds 'City Union Ticket" !
printed at the top OF each of the ballots |
cast for Weaver, constituted a "distIn- |
gushing mark within the meaning of /
the section OF the act above cited, and rem
I4der this ballots void, and thst ali he legal /
ballots having b, en- cast Tor the appellant |
he waH legally elected aud is entitled to |
| mold the office.
The construction contended for is that !
1t was the intention of the Legislature to |
exclude frOra the ticket every distinguish |
ing nsesrs from the inside as well the !
outside, and that any sucn mark on either I
side OF the ticket renders IL void. Whether |
1t be visible TO the inspector when the /
ticket Is presented to him or not, that, If |
visible, IL Is the duty OF the lnspec or TO |
refuse the ticket wheR IL Is presented. but /
If the mark be on the inside of the tieset, /
and cannot therefore be seen by the in /
spSctor wnen the ticket is folded and thus
presented to bin, and IL thereby gets into {
the nallot-box, 1t is neverthe eSs tIle.u /
and void, and should be rejected o. The in /
spector and Judges In cour ting out The bal /
lots. Alter a C ireful consideration of the (
tiOn OF the statute.
II 1t be conceded that the words "City /
ballots cast for Weaver were in ended to /
demignate u particular political party 4
OrHau1BltlO0, anu might c0nStltute dis ]
tingnisninS mark, still the question is, /
we're they SO placed on the tickets as ia /
fact to constitnts such marx within the /
meaning of the statute.
Y The cOnst uction'ot be statute contend /
ed 10 would lead to ab urd con- equeuces, /
aud ONE in co Ifiict with other So tutOry +
provisions, whi h., we are satisfied, the /
Legislature did no intend to repeal. The /
act requires all the ballots to b written /
or pTtated on plain white paper, without /
any distinguishing mark or enbe Iish- |
nent thereon, and makes 1t the duty of /
gtrN4.
o any other description, but Il does n 0t |
authoriEe the inspector or Judges to reject /
the ballot upon the discovery of such a /
marx or establishment NJ the time of |
counting out the bal ots, which could not /
be seen by the inspector at the time |
lot is readily determine by an In /
Spection OF the folded balloi and so, /
IL IL should have upon il anv external |
visible mark or embeiffshment, II would |
be detected In the same way. and snouId |
intention of ne Eegis atu to require The /
inspector 60 open and inspect every bal /
/ lot Ole cd to ascertain II IL nntained such /
! an Objectionable mark or embf Iii hment. /
Such an examination would not only be /
| in eonA ct with other statutes but with the I
| spirit and policy OF the Law itself The /
eighteenth section OF fhe acI egu,ating /
general elections q q. q H., 399,) makes II I
| the duty of the inSpe T when a ballot Is /.
received to !" put 1T ltl pen a into the bal /
| lot box" And section forty of the act de- /
Aning mtsdemeanoTs, provides thai " II
any Judge inspector, clerk or other ofncefs I
shall open or MARX by folding or otherwise, 7
/ any tic Set presented by such eIector st /
| such eiectiOH or attempt 10 find out the /
names thereon, or. suffer the same 10 be I
| done by any other person before such !
| ticket ia deposited in the ballot box, shall |
be Aned in any sum not exceeding one I
| hundred dollars.
The object ofthe act under consideration /
evid- atty was to protect the electOr from /
| the undue influence aud control of others, I
and secure 10 him entire freedom of OPP -
ion In exercise OF the elective franchise, by |
| enabling him to cast his vote Sucu a /
manner as to prevent others who, from |
| their particular relations 10 him, might, /
/ hy intlmida ion or otherwise, seek to con-
/ troll his vote, from b. 1ng able, from the |
| color of his ticket, or some distinguishing /
| mark thereon, 10 determine the party or
person for whom he voted.
| This object would seem to be secured, a 5 /
| far as leg slative enactment could affect 1t, /
/ by requiring All the ballots cast to be uni /
/ form In external appearance. And such /
| section OF the statute under consideration. |
- Judgment affirmed, with costs
| 1t rs therefore considered by the Court /
4 that the Judgment OF the Court below In |
/ the above entitled cause, be IN all things /
affirmed at the cost of the appellant, all /
| of which Is ordered certified to said Court. /
I rand IL ia further con- idered by the Court /
/ that the appellee recover OF the appellant /
Il the SUN OF - for costs and charges in /
bthis behalf expended.
State of Indiana, Supreme Court:
r. I, the undersigned, Clerk of the supreme /
Court of the State OF Indiana, certify the |