The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1874-10-20

answer the question, If the Judge should de-
eide that he ought to- The witness acting
doubtless on this advice, did decline to answer
the question. lie was committed, and on the
next morning was brought. on habeas corpus
before Chief Justice Plerpoint, who agreed
with Justice Roberts that the witness was
bound to answer the question, and adJudged
that his imprisonment was lawful. The Wit
ness thereupon expressed his readiness to an
swer, 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 Witness and of the
objections Of Mr.. Dana's counsel to any disco-
sure which the witness was able to make
The whole matter was simply an appeal. In
the only mode possible from the magistrate
to the Chief-Justice, who vas supposed TO
know the law better than the magistrate.
1t was well understood by Mr.. Dana's coun-
sci that competent authorities could not be
had in Mlddlebury to fortify their position be-
fore the Chlef-Justice; but knowing well the
habit of his mind to reach Just conclusions
from well understood principles, and his dis
tingushed ability in this respect, they felt en-
tire confidence that their position would lie
sustained. In this they were disappointed, as
| been able to produce before the Chlef-Justice.
on the hearing, any one of the following au-
thorltles. which proceed to cite;
"When the voting is by ballot, the voter is
| not compelled to disclose the character of his
| vote, nor to disclose TOR whom he voted on II
given occasion; "-Cnshing's Law ana Practice
| of Legislative Assemblies, Sec 1870.
That such is the ruling and practice in con-
tested elections before Congress, see Congress
sional Globe 10. APP. i56.
"The courts have held.that Il voter even in
| case of a contested election, cannot be compel
led to distiose for whom he voted"
public policy requires that the veil of secre-
| cy should be impenetrable, unless the voter
| himself voluntarily determines to lift it; his
ballot is absolutely privileged, Cooley Con.
| stitutional Limitations, COS.
| 1.-The right to vote by ballot has usually been
| considered an important and valuable safe
guard of the independence of the humble cit.
| iZen against the influeHce which wealth and
| station might be supposed to exercise. This
object would be accomplished but very imper,
fectly, If the privacy supposed to be secured
! was limited TO the moment of depoSiting the
| ballot. The spirit of this system requires that
| the elector should be secured then, and nj al
| times thereafter, against reproach or animal
version, or any other prejudice, .on account OF
| having voted according to his own unbiased
| judgment and that security is made to con
| sst In shutting up, within the privacy of his
| own mind, all knowledge of the manner IN
which he has bestowed his suflrage."-Pel
| Y, Court of Appeals, 81.
The Supreme Court of Michigan has gone
much hey ond this deciding that "a legal votei
| cannot be compelled to disclose for whom he
| voted and no one else can give testimony
upon that point, unless the voter himself has
at the time of voting made the contents ofhi'
ballot public by his own consent. No knowl
edge obtained without his consent is admissa
BILE" People vs.. Cicott, 10 Mich, 2s3; and this
is approved by Judge Cooley Const. Inns