The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-09-22

To the Editor of the Burlington Free Press and
Times.
Your reference to The contested election
case in Cornwall, and the proceedings
which resulted in the arrest and imprison-
ment of the witness Lowell, for refusing
to answer the question, "For whom did
you vote for town representative p has
more OF the same racincss and piquancy of
the parographist, than the plain statement
OF the judicial reporter There was DO
'contumacy' on the part of the witness,
there was no striking vindication of the
power and majesty of the law, there was
nothing melo-dramatc on the occasion.
The witness, Lowell, was of Canadian
birth, had become paturalized, and voted
ut the election, and, as it was supposed.
for Mr.. Dana, the returned member. He
was an unettered man, but bears the repu-
tation OF being honest, industrious and re-
spectacle, and appeared TO be decidedly
straightforward as witness, and intelli-
gent for one of his class.
Upon the foregoing question being put
w MN, wv SOhilotl ibl MI. llIllI lIldup
the point to the magistrate who was talk
the deposition (John L. Roberts. ESQ that
the witness was privileged from answering
that question, and requested the magistrate
SO to instruct him--that the constitution
and law which provided that all elections
should be free, and for the security OF such
freedom cnjoined that such election should
be by ballot, and "folded up in such
manner as to conceal the name of such
person voted for, entitled the voter to
maintain the sccrcsy of his ballot, at lis
own will, so long as he should desire, that
this was a principle of constitutional free
dom ID Vermont, which could not be
broken down in behalf of the contestant
The counsel foI Mr.. Williamson, the con-
testant, claimed that these provisions of
the constitution and the law were designed
merely for the orderly conduct of an cleo
ton, and TO preserve order and prevent
confusion in town meeting and that as
soon as the election was over the voters
protection was gone, and he could be com
PEELED upon oath, in case Of contest to ex-
pose the secret of his ballot. The magis-
trate was of this opinion. and ruled that
the witness was not privileged, and that
the question should he answered. Mr..
Dana's counsel then stated that it was still
their on;nio, tba. the wi,noss copld No. be
~, 49,. 80.
"iu''y oolhpeiio" " answer 'ia' q"cS-
ton, and that If the witness chose to de-
cline to answer, the question could be
readily settled by an appeal to Chief JUS
ticc Pierpoint on haJeas corpus. if the mag
islrate should see fit to commit him and
that the witness would answer the Ques-
ton, if the judge should decide that he
ought to. The witness, acting doubtless
| 0Neshjsu .odYieew dy' cdH6iifevtc an6u6Ii the
| next morning was brought. on hGbens cor
ma. before Chief Justice Pierpoint. who
| agreed with Justice Roberts that the wit
ness was bound to answer the question, and
adiudged that his mprisonment was law
ful. The witness thereupon expressed his
readiness to answer. and was returned to
Cornwall where he made answer to that
and all other questions frankly and freely
This is all there was of the ..contumacy"
| of the witnesses. and of the objections of
Mr., Dana's counsel TO any disclosure
which the witness was able to make The
ONLY mode possible. from the magistrate to
the chief Justice. who was supposed to
| know the law better than the magistrate,
1t was well understood by Mr.. Dana's
counsel that competent authorities could
not he had in Middlebury TO fortify their
posltion before the chef Justice; but
knowing we'll the habit of Ills mind to
reach inst conclusions from well under
stood nrincinles and his distinguished
ability in this resnect they felt entire con.
fidencc that their nosition would be sus-
tanned. In this they were disappointed, as
I am sure they would not have been had
thew been able to produce before the chief
;nsiice on the HEARING any one of the fol.
lowing authorities; which | proceed TO
ci,e.
,.When the voting is by ballot. the voter
is not compelled TO disclose the character
of his vote nor 70 disclose for whom he
voted on a ciyen occasion. ~ lisAiDo's Lam
ana pyuctice of Tsojsl1tjrs Assemblies. SIC.
100
Tha, snch ia fine ruling and practice in
contested elections before Congress sec
Gonoress;onaI GIobe 16 Ann, 456.
.,Tbe rourts have held that n voter even
in casc of contested election. cannot be
comnelIed IN DISCLOSE for whom he voted.
"puhlic ,olicv rcouircs that the veil OF
socrocv ehonId he imncnetrohle unless the
Toter himsetf vol,,ntarilv determines to III
II ~ his haIioi is nhsnlniclv nrivileCed. -
Tool4'Is anstjt,,tianoI Ij,n}Yotjons 605
..1be riTht 70 votc nv hoilot has usual,
boon cons;Sered m ;mnortant and valnobl,
, saferuard of tine Observation-Disclosures of the hum.
blc citizen AGAINST the influence which
wealth and station MIGHT he supnosed tc
evercise' This object would he accom-
nlished Int very imnerfectly. If the priyac,
supnosed to he secured was limited to til,
moment of denositinc the ballot. Tn,
sn;rit If his svsirm reouires that the elec
ION should he sccurcd lhen. and at al
ti,nos thoreafter ocainst ronroach or amin
adversion. or INV other preiudice. on ac