The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1869-04-15

anime aud decide on the Objectionable
tickets, two of which were cut out OF
the JOURNAL. and were thrown out
by the judges because they had
printing on the backs.
Mr.. Chandler said that as attorneys
for Mr.. Semonin, they proposed to
show cause why the tickets cut from
the JOURNAL should be counted.
| Mr.. Chandler argued his position at
considerable length. In the course
of his remarks, he said that IT a
ballot was offered that had dIstln-
gushing marks or embellishments on
it, it was the duty of the Inspector to
refuse it, and if not so refused, and
| the vote was put into the ballot box,
it had to be counted.
He then read from the Evansville
. JOURNAL of Nov. I'd, 1868, from the
decision Of the Supreme Court, In a
similar case, which is as fellows:
The act requires all the ballots to be
written or printed on plain white paper,
without any distinguishing mark or en-
Dellishment thereon, and makes it the
duty of the inspector to refuse Eli ballots
offered of any other description, but it
does not auth OTize the inspector or judges
to reject the ballot upon the discovery of
such mark or embellishments at the time
of counting out the ballots, which could
moi be seen by the inspector at the time It
was voted. The color OF the ballot is read
lily determined by an inspection of the
folded ballot, and SO, If it 1ould have
upon it any external visible mark or en-
bells hment, it would be detected in the
same way, and should be refused; but it
was certainly not the f1tention of the
Legislature to require the inspector to
open and inspect every ballot offered to
ascertain If 1t contained such an objec-
Jionable mark or establishment.
Mr.. Hynes followed Mr.. Chandler,
and said that every voter was sup
posed TO know the law under which
he voted, and if he voted a ticket
with distinguishing marks and en-
bellishments on it, he done it at his
own risk. He argued at some length
and held that the tickets cut from the
JOURNAL, were NOT legal.
Gen. Shackelford replied to Mr..
Hyaes in a shOrt but really brilliant
speech, and said as Mr.. Hynes was
such a sticklef for following the law
he would hold him to that PROPOSE
ton, and challenged him to show
where any statute declared that tick
cts voted like these could not be
counted. He. held that the PROPOSE
ton was plain, as shown by the deci-
sion of the Supreme Court, and
showed conclusively that the tickets
aforesaid were legal and should be
counted for Mr.. Semonin.
Mr.. Hopkins thea moved that the
tickets cut from the JOURNAL be
counted for Mr.. Semonin, and gave as
his reason for 50 doing that he be-
lieved the votes were valid and legal,
and that thO@B who voted them wanted
to elect Mr.. Semonin.
Mr.. Orr stated that he was in favor
ofcounting them, for the same reasons
given by MIR. Hopkins.
The Council then took the vote on
the question, which was carried
The tally then showed that Mr.
Van Ripper had received 206 votes,
and Mr. Semonin 20S.
Mr.. Wiltshire moved that, as Mr.
Semonin had received a majority of
the votes cast, he be declared the
Councilman for the Third Ward.
Messrs. Orr and Hopkins were not
prepared to vote on that motion. Mr..
Ven Ripper wanted to submit further
evidence, and they were willing to
give him every chance.
Mr. Wiltshire Withdrew his motion.
On motion, it was declared that Mr..
Van Ripper could take no part In the
proceedings until this whole matter
was disposed of.
Mr.. Hopkins moved to adjourn to
meet this morning at 10 o'clock, TO
continue the case and hear any fur
Their testimony that might be pro-
duced. Carried.
The witnesses were ordered to at
tend this morning, and the Council
adjourned.