Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-03-26

the benefits anticipated from this system, stat:
utes have been passed, in come Of the States
Which prohibit ballots being received or count
cd unless the same are written or printed upon
white paper, without any marks or figures
thereon intended to distinguish one ballot from
another. The statutes are simply declaratory
of q constitutional principle that inheres in the
system of voting by ballot, and which ought to
be inviolable whether declared or not.
In the absence Of such statute, all devices by
which party managers are enabled "a
distinguish ballots in the hand Of the voter,
| and thus determine whether he is voting for OF
against them, are opposed to the spirit of the
constitution, inasmuch as they tend to defect
the design for which voting by ballot is estab-
ished.
THE courts have held that voter, even in
case Of q contested election, cannot be com.
PEELED to disclose for whom he voted. Public
policy requires that the veil Of secrecy should
be impenetrable, unless the voter himself vol.
unfairly determines to lift it; his ballot is abso.
luteiy pr1vlleged;- and to allow evidence Of til
contents, when he has not waived the privilege.
is to encourage trickery and fraud, and would,
in effect, establish this remarkable anomalv'
that while the law from motives of public Dol.
ICY, establishes the secret ballot, with view to
conceal the electors action, it at the same time
encourages system Of espionage, by means OF
which the veil Of secrecy may be penetrated
ana 1 the voters action disclosed to the public.
Cooley Const. Linn 804, People vs. Cicott, l6
Mich. 283; People vs.. Pease, ~ N. 7. 81.
Inc question has also undergone investiga-
ton IN the supreme court Of Vermont. In
Temple vs.. Head, vt. 535, the court say: I'm
this country, and indeed in every country
where officers are elective different modes have
been adopted for the electors to signify
their choice. The most common modes have
been, either by voting Viva uoee, that is, by the
elector openly naming the person he designates
for the office, or by ballot. The
principal object of this last mode is to enable
the elector to express his opinion secretly,
without being subject to be overawed or to
any lll-will or persecution on account Of his
vote for either of the candidates who may be
before the public
1t is believed that these authorities estab-
llsh, beyond doubt, that the ballot implies alb
solute and lnviolable secrecy, and that the
principle is founded in the highest considers
tions of public policy.
When our present constitution was framed,
voting by ballot was in vogue in nearly every
State in the Union. That mode of voting had
been known and we'll understood for centuries.
The term ballot, as designating mode Of cleo
ton, was then well ascertained and clearly de-
fined. The eminent trainers of the constitu-
ton certainly employed this term with full
knowledge of its meaning. Many of the most
distinguished members of the constitutional
convention Of 1850 were members of the leRis-
lature Of 1862 the first that met under the
ballot aystem as securing inviolable secrecy, is
clearly shown by the following law which they
then helped to enact:
IF any judge, inspector, clerk or other Off.
cer of an election shall open or mark, by fold
ing or otherwise, any ticket presented by such
the names thereon, or suffer the same to be
done by any other person, before such ticket is
deposited in the ballot-box, he shall be fined
in any sum not exceeding one hundred dol
lars" 2 q. & H. 479, $50.
1t the constitution secures to the voter, in
nifty OF secrecy, there can be no doubt that SEQ
ton of the act of 1869, which authorized the
inspector to number ballots, is clearly in con-
fict with it and is void.
am not unmindful Of the rule that all
doubts are to be solved in favor Of the con-
stitutionality of legislative enaotments. This
rule is we'll established and is founded In the
highest wisdom. But my convictions are clear
that our constitution was intended to, and
does, secure the absolute secrecy of the ballot,
and that the act in question, which directs the
numbering of tickets, to correspond with the
numbers opposite the names Of the electors
~ Spou-lists, is in palpable conflict not only
1.-The spirit, but with the substance of the
Institutional provision.
This act was intended to, and does, clearly
identify every mans ticket and renders 1t easy
to ascertain exactly how any particular person
has voted. The secrecy which is esteemed by
oil authority to be essential to the free exercise
Of suffrage, is much violated by this law as If
it had declared that the election should be yiya
Voce.
We add one authority. Wharton's Law Die
tionary:
Ballot. To vote for or choose person into
Office by means of little balls Of several colors,
which are put into box privately, according
to the inclination Of the ohooser or voter; OF
BY writing the name or names Of the candi-
dates upon small pieces of paper and rolling
them up so that they cannot be read, which
are put into a box, and when the time limited
for an election is over, an Indifferent person
takes them out one by one, and upon reading
the name or Names somebody takes down the
number of votes, the greater Of which is deolar-
ed duly elected"
The demurrer was overruled, and exceptions
taken. The appellant refused to answer over,
and the cause was submitted to the court for
trial Finding and judgment for the plaintiff
for one hundred and fifty dollars. The only
error assigned is the over-ruling Of the demur-
Ter to the complaint. This was not error.
The Judgment is affirmed at the cost Of the
appellant.