The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1876-12-21

aware OF llt tAlhloHNC VI INV oNuNuNpt hNsW@fA
standing the rule, igpOrdnttd Iegts ercusat neml-
mem; but II can not be the rule that one who exer-
cises right derived under the Constitution OF the
United States can be said to be ignorant OF the
limitations of that right. 1t is familiar prlnci'
pie In the law that he who takes benefit, wheth-
or by statute agreement or will takes 1t cum onere
that is subject TO all the restrictions attached,
and can not avail hin self Of the privilege with
out bearing the burden. Without knowing, there
fore, whether the Governor Of Oregon adopted the
Indiana rule or the New York rule, think am
authorized to presume that II he espoused the
New York doctrii g, he was satisfied In canvassing
the votes that a number OF Republican electors
voting for Watts more than equal 10 Watts major
ty over Cronin knew that he was Postmaster
and that the same number either knew or were
bound TO know Of the constitutional disqualihca'
ton which attached to the office OF Watts
In Great Britain the rule is well established that
votes cast for an ineligible candidate must be TAX
en- to have been thrown away The cases are
very numerous. The result Of them was stated
Lord Denman in lS47, In deciding the case ofGos'
ling VS.. Veley, IA Adolphus Il Ellis, 3d. 4S7l In
these words "The result Of the decisions appears
TO be this. Where the majority of electors vote
for a disqualified person In ignorance OF the fact
OF disqualification. the election may be void or
vodable, or in the latter case may be capable Of
being made good according TO the nature of The
disqualification. The objection may require ul-
terror proceedings TO be taken before some COM
peent tribunal In order 10 make II available; or II
may be such as to place the elected candidate on
the same footing as If he never had existed, and
the votes for him were nullity. But In no such
case are the electors who vote for him deprived of
their votes II the fact becomes known and is de-
Clartd while the election is still incomplete. They
may instantly proceed 10 another nomination and
vote for another candidate" Ut will be remem-
bered that In England elections are all conducted
UiUa uoce) "If 1t be disclosed afterward, the par
ty elected may be ousted and the election declared
void; but the candidate in the minority Will not
he deemed ipSo JdciO elected. But where an cleo
tor before voting receives due notice that par
tcular candidate is disqualified. and yet will do
nothing but tender his vote for him. he must be
taken voluntarily toabstain from exercising his
| franchise and therefore however strongly he
may, in fact, dissent, he must be taken in law TO
assent to the election of the opposing and quail
fed candidate, for he will not take the only course
by which it can be reslsted-that is the helping to
the election of some other person. He is present
/ us du GlGGVOls AAlo pANoShSS NNNh'' ~ "NNA W.
make up the requisite number of electors, where
certain number is necessary, but he attends on
ly as an elector to perform the duty which is cast
on him by the franchise he enjoys as eector he
can speak only In particular language; he can
do only certain acts; any other language means
nothing any other act is merely null his duty is
to assist in making an election, If he dlssents
from the choice OF A, who is qualified, he must
say so by voting for some other also qualified. He
has no right to employ his franchise merely in
preventing an election, and so defeating the OBJ
ect for which he is empowered and bound TO at
tend. And this is a wise and just rule in the law.
| 1t is necessary that an election should be duly
made and at the lawful time; the electoral meet
ing is held for that purpose only and but for this
rule the interest of the public and the purpose OF
the meeting might both be defeated by the per-
veReness or the corruption of electors who nay
seek some unfair advantage by posponement.
IT, then, the electOr will not oppose the election Of
A in the only legal way, he throws away his vote
by directing II where it has no legal force and in
so doing he voluntarily leaves unopposed-t, e.,
assents to-the voices of the other electors.
"Where The disqualification depends on a fact
which may be unknown to the elector, he is enu-
tied to notice. for without that the inference OF as
sent could not be fairly drawn,nor would the con-
sequences as 10 the vote be just But If the dis
qualification be of SOFT whereof notice is to be
presumed none need expressly be given no one
can doubt that II an elector would nominate and
vote only for woman to fill the office of Mayoro or
Burgess in Parliament, his vote would be thrown
away; there the fact would be notorious, and ,ev'
cry man would be presumed to know the law up
| on that fact.
ut follows from these observations that the
true ground of the decision is that stated by Lord
Mansfield in the case first cited-Rex VS.. Foxcroft
| Burr, 102l: Whenever electors are present who
do not vote at all, they virtually acquiesce in the
election made by those who do In that case the
numerical majority Contented themselves with
protesting against the election of him for whom
the n inority voted In the case of Taylor against
the Mayor of Bath, Is Ludcrs 34. the counsel in
| argument took the distinction between not voting
at all and voting for disqualified candidate
They admit that silence might be held to give
consent but that voting for the other candidate
was an express negative; 1t was the only way,
they said, of voting against one to vote for the
other But the Court overruled the distinction; to
vote for person not qualified, they said was the
same thing as not to vote at all, which it was ad-
m,''eI soot.,,,o i norr
Hoiu D1lu -. . wy S',i,,' w a.. oo ,,s
SsVioue Is,, ~ o 0'oV oIoS u mI 80, GOV
oouAs 10 .ii.' ~ - ~ ,,o.', 81, ~,
SAID ne tha tnls appears 70 me 10 De very pam
case II is allowed tnat IL depends Oh lne Elgh'
OF Cundall 70 ACT as Couhollloroh Ine I'n ol NO,
vember 1852 II ne had rlght 50 70 act az thaI
time, the present oeiehoaht B hoI uuly eiecveu'
Now, as to Cundalls rlght' VINO was elecIed
Councillor on the LIST OF November 1901, the case
just the same as II Blake had not been the candi-
date on that OCCASION TO be sure he did stand
but then he was lnellglple' and that iact was
known to the voters. 1t is principle of all eec-
ton law and of good sense that persons who
knowingly throw vote for an ineligible candi-
date throw away their Uotes Just as much as II they
voted for The man in the mOOn"
In another report OF the same case, namely ID
Jurist, Part l, page S78 Lord CampbelFs language
is reported thus: This is clear 1t Is allowed
that 1t depends upon whether Cunuall had right
to act as City Councillor of Norwich on the 18th OF
November. lfhe had right so to act, the pre-
sent defendant was not duly elected Mayor, and
is usurper, and the quo tOdrranto properly issued