Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1876-09-22

votes IN the wrong Bon
1t is reported that the right of Paul j.
Dean, the returned member from Barnard,
to seat in the general assembly will be
contested on the ground that several votes
for his opponent-and enough, if counted,
TO elect hIm-were put in the box provided
for the reception OF votes for representa-
tive in Congress. This presents a very i'm
portant question. The law, under " hicA our
elections are held. provides that there shall
be provided. by each town, one box in
which shall be placed votes for town repre-
sentative one box In which shall be placed
votes for State and county officers one box
for votes for justices of the peace ard one
box for votes for representative in Congress.
and that at three O'Clock, the voting for
town representative shall cease, and the
votes publicly sorted. counteda land declared.
and. it an election is made, the presiding
officer shall make out and deliver to the
person elected a certificate, etc. ard that,
at five o'clock. the other boxes shall be
closed. the votes counted. etc.
This requirement OF the statute would
seem to be impossible to be complied with,
if it should be held that vote headed For
town representative which found its way
into the Congress oox should be counted for
town representative because it could not
be ascertained that such vote had been
polled. that such a mistake had been made,
until two hours after the result of the elec-
tion OF town representative had been ascer-
tanned and declared.
la 1868, the question came up in the
general assembly in the case of a contest
from the town of Bridgewater. One Z. B.
Carpenter was returned as elected by one
majority but, on counting the Congress
sionsl vote. tour votes were found for his
tai ~
- For town representative, which, if they
had been counted, would have defeated an
election. These facts were found by the
committee on elections, and reported TO tho
House The report was accompanied by
resolution, = in order to test the sense OF
the house. declaring that, inasmuch a.
Carpenter :" did not receive a majority of
all the votes given for town representative"
be was not duly elected. and WAS not en-
titled to his seat. The resolution was re-
iected without a DIVISION. aud Carpenter re-
taIned his seat This. VIC take 1t. il an
authoritative expression that votes placed
by mistake in the Congress box are not to be
counted Tor town representative.
On the other side. 1t may be stated that
the question again came up. in 1868. in
contested election from Nershire, where
committee Of the general assembly reported
that votes in the Congress box were proper
~ counted. inasmuch a. they designated
that they were given For town represent
atIve" but the contest being determined
On other grounds, the question was not
passed upon by the general assembly.
Al the municipal election in Burlington.
last spring. as We are informed, in count
lng the votes for Aldermen in one Of the
wards, a certain person was declared duly
elected but. in subsequently counting the
k1~
man" were found, which. being counted.
gave the majority to his opponent. who was
declared daily elected and now holds his
seat as Alderman. Ii the facts are correctly
stated. it can hardly be taken as
prec, dent for the case we are considering.
because there Is q very marked distinction
In the statutes relative to such elections
the laws require separate boxes for town
representatives, representatives in Congress,
etc.. while the charter of Burlington does
not require separate boxes for votes tor May
or and Alderman.
IL may, also. be urged that the inten-
ton of the voter is expressed by his vote,
no matter where it may be deposited, and
that such intention ought to govern and
that it would be grossly Unfair to allow
the carelessness or blunder OF the inspec-
tor to deprive citizen of his right to vote.
But 60 this it nav be replied, that unless
the laws are complied with, it is of no use
to have laws. and that tho ballot might as
well be done away with at once. And to
this it can be replied. that where a legal
vote has been improperly rejected, the
general assembly have. time and again.
corrected the error by counting the vote
tor the person for whom it would have been
given the same as if it had been actually
and legally cast.
And so We might 90 on, giving reasons
pro and con, and still leave the matter in
doubt IL is in the power of the general
assembly to prevent the recurrence of such
mistakes in the future. by providing. so
far as they have the power, that the votes
for all OF these officers shall be contained
on one and the same ballot. Until this is
done these mistakes will continue to occur.