The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1870-11-01
VOL. XIX:
The Lnst Resort.

day that tho friends o. the defeated can.
dIdates for Sheriff and Clerk Of the Cir
cult Court, intended to try to induce the
Board Of Supervisors to throw out all the
Republican tickets voted in Thursdays
election, on the ground that they were not
such ballots as the law requires shall
be used, The claim Of these gentlemen
Is, VIC learn, that those ballots. did not
conform to the following provision, Of tho
Code:' : = y = - t1Sl
Every person offering to vote at a,l
election shall present to one Of the inspec'
tors single ballot written or printed upon
white paper, which shall be folded or roll.
cd so that its contents cannot be seen, and
ir there be any mark, color or device visi'
bic on tho same, intended to distinguish
II from other ballots voted at tho election,
1t shall-not be received N-See. 16 Chap 8
of C0de.
These gentlemen claim that the cut
Of The goddess Of liberty, printed aat
the head of tho Republican ticket,
Is q "mark or device " within the
meaning Of this section. 1t is,a mark
or device of course, but not within the
intent Of this section, because ii is on the
inside ofthe paper when folded, isa part
Of the contents and cannot be seen when
tho ticket is presented ut the polls. The
object Of this section was simply to pre-
serve the secrecy Of the ballot, to prevent
any such outward marking and designa-
ton of itasshould disclose the nature ofthe
contents. "a critical, examination Of the
language makes the meaning apparent
Tho law deals only, with the ballot when
presented at the polls. Itis then folded SO
that nothing written or printed on thesidg
OF tho paper folded in can be seen. A
'mark, color or device" on the inside Is
therefore not visible" and therefore can'
not be intended to disclose the contents oI
the ballot by. distinguishing it from Other
ballots voted at the election. This clearly
refers to such q marking Of the ticket by
color Of paper, by mark or device on the
outside rs to distinguish it when pre-
sented to the inspector from other ballots
presented him! Tricks Of this kind used
to be tried in some States to deter persons
from voting certain ticket, and 1t be-
CAME necessary to provide against them
1t is only necessary to ask this question
Was any "mark, color or device visible.
on the Republican ballots when handed
to the inspector for his inspection and dc
poslt in The boxg No. Then what
could the inspector do but deposit the
ballot9 Ho had no right to look inside
the ticket to see what was, there. Hc Il
only concerned with what iis" visiblcI
when tho ticket is handed to him ploper'
" folded. 'a E. .@e!f .EHs
Suppose a device on the inside Of tht
ticket was forbidden by this section
wouldn't 1t he very curious law? None il
visible" 10 the inspector, and he Is cx
prcssly forbidden to open the ballot so n:
10 expose the inside on Which the contents
are printed. He must not receive tht
ballot, these gentleman say, II There is any
mark or device inside; he cannot know
whether there is any device inside or not
without unfolding 1t, and this he must no
10. What is The inspector TO do?
It's very clear, we think, that the Re
publican ballots were in strict conformity
to the language quoted. al.., a..a ias
If they were otherwise, where woult
tho board Of supervisors find authority Il
throw them outH THIS law Is simply dt
rectory to the inspectors. 1t makes !
their duty not to receive ballots tlnlcs
they conform ITO certain regulations o
secrecy. Suppose in disregard or ignor
ance Of this direction, they do receive
them, is the honest voter TO bc the SUI
ferer,l. If the ballot were, refqsed tht
clector woatdhaSc anyopportunity't6 pre-
sent another and proper one. II it is re
cclved, it must stand as his vote, or Ht
must 81 dlsfranchised. Is there anything
in this neglect Of duty BY I'll,
inspector in d relatively unimportant mat
ter, to vitiate the vote Of tho honest cleo
tor whose ballot expresses his will al
though Objectionable to,a mere Iregula
tton as 70 tho manner ofcasting 1t? Is thl
right Of the voter to be taken away be
cause the inspector failed in his dutyi !
every. ono Of these two thousand ballot
had been received in disregard Of th'
regulation quoted, through delinqucnc,
Of the inspectors, We defy these attorneys
or anybody else to show either law orrea
son for takingaway from these two thou
sand men the right to, have counted thcl
ballots, cast honestly and in good faith
1t Is not such q fundamental regulation q,
that It's violation would Eittate the elcc
ton. But, We repeat, not onCofthose bal
lots Is oBnoxions to even this regulation
under tic most technical construction thu
can be given to the law with any, refer
cnce to lis plain intent. "a 2 z, 'ai.zi.ss .,
We can hardly believe that anybody
sefIousiy meditates tho purpose attributed
70 the friends orthcse defeated candidates
and We should not have referred to 1t iii
had not become a matter Of common ru
NOR on the streets. Let these gentlemen
remember that by their own rulcot con
struction every Democratic ticket in tn
county would be cast out, too; 70