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

The decision of Chief Justice Pier.
point, in the Habeas Corpus case OF
Albert Lowell, that man must dis
close for whom he voted, has attracted
much attention and provoked consider
able criticism.
We re-publish a letter to the Burlng-
ton Free Press in reply to an editorial
in that paper citing authorities on this
question.
1t is found also that, in 1884. in a
contested election case before the Yer
mont House of Representatives, sever
al witnesses were brought before the
Committee of Elections, (it being the
practice at That time Tor wItuessv, -
appear in person before the committee
and on being asked "For whom did
you vote for Town Representative ~
they refused to answer. They were
brought to the bar of the House charged
with contempt of the House for their
refusal to answer this question. After
discussion of the question the House
voted. by very large majority, thai
they were not in contempt for such re-
fusal, and voted that the witnesses be
discharged. Thus in the Legislature
of Vermont as well as elsewhere it has
been settled that man cannot be com
PEELED to disclose for whom he voted
at an election.
When we before made comment up
on this subject, it was on the SUPPOSE
ton that there were n 10 precedents upon
which to base an opinion. In fact
Gov. Taft expressly admitted, in his
argument before the Chief Justice, that
there were none. In that case il
seemed, and ii still seems, that it was
not necessary To place any other con-
struction upon the law than that given
TO it by Chief Justice Pierpoint. But
with all these presidents before us, the
case is different. They make law, in
the absence of express statute, and the
suggestion we made that ii would have
been proper and wise to make law ex-
compelled to disclose for whom he vot-
ed, had it seems, been acted upon be-
fore we made it And this common
law" of established precedent, is, and
must be, equally binding with legis
lative enactment. Below Is the COM
munication referred to:
To tha I,lit.,. Of H. ~ - ~
Your reference TO the contested election
case In Cornwall, and the proceedings which
resulted in the arrest and Imprisonment Of
the witness Lowell, for refusing to answer the
question, For whom did you vote for Town
Representative ?" has more of the raciness
and piquancy Of the paragraphlst, than the
plain statement Of the judicial reporter. There
was no "contumacy". on the part of the Wit
ness, there was no striking vindication of the
power and majesty of the law, there was moth
Ing melo-dramatic on the occasion.
The witness Lowell. was OF Canadian birth,
had become naturallzed, and voted at the cleo
ton, and as 1t was supposed. for Mr.. Dana, the
returned member. He wasan unlettered man
but bears the reputation Of being honest, in
dustrious and respectable. and appeared TO be
decidedly straightforward as witness, and
intelligent for one of his class.
Upon the foregoing question being put to
him, the counsel for Mr.. Dana made the point
10 the magistrate who was taking the deposit
tion John f. 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 enIoined that
such election should be by ballot and fold
ed up in such manner as to conceal the name
Of such person" voted for entitled the voter
TO maintain the secresy of his ballot, at his
own Will, so long as he should desire; that
this was principle Unconstitutional freedom
In Vermont. which could not be broken down
In behalf OF the contestant. The counsel for
Mr.. Williamson, the contestant, claimed that
these provisions of the constitution and the
law were designed merely for the orderly con-
duct of an election and TO preserve order and
prevent confusion In town meeting; and that
soon as the election was over the voters
protection was gone, and he could he compel
lSd upon oath. In contest. TO oppose the secret
ofhis ballot. Tho magistrate was of this opln-
ion, and ruled that the witness was not privi-
legged. and that the question should he answer
ed. Nj. Danas counsel then stated TINT II
was still their opinion that the witness could
not be lawfully compelled 10 answer that
question. and that II the witness chose 10 de-
cline to answer. the question could he readily
settled by an appeal to ChefJuslice Plcrpolnt
on habeas corpus If the magistrate should see
NJ 10 commit him and that the witness would