The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1881-01-06
VOLUME xiv.

IO l1dB Shall NObc Unless ne Cali E-stl anu
write or has paid his poll tax, the law mus
be enforced though many be denied th,
privilege of voting So, equally, If the iaN
prescrlbes form or a color for ticket, NJ
man has right to vote unless he compile
t with the law; for it mast be remembered
that voting is a privilege conferred by writ
ten law and may be taken away by law fol
: crime, and that il is not one of the natura
and inherent rights of man, which are no
conferred and cannot be taken away by leg
! islation. And to show that this rule Of stric
construction is applicable to the right t,
vote as much as to any other right conferred
BY law | quote the following decision 0
Chief-J ustice LoWrie in the case of Common
wealth v. Meesen. Al Pa. st. R., 343, anC
/ Brightly's Election Gases, 448:
No doubt there are very many cases in
which strict adherence to the letter of the
Law would be destructive of justice, and il
is quite impossible for the law to define
| with precision all the customary rights OF a
people or TO express exactly the duties arts
ing from everchanging forms of social trans
actions there is very large field of social
relations wherein the law, whether statutory
or customary, must ever remain somewhat
indefinite in order to be adapted to society.
But is it so with our election law? We
think not. All our electoral rights depend
on written law, and it only can define them.
1t is true that written law depends itself on
Interior principles Of natural law, but these
principles are subject to very great dlversl-
ties of application and lack entirely that
definiteness which is an essential quality of
law as a rule of common or social conduct.
Law is intended to be a definition OF those
principles, in such form As to fit them for
ready and ordinary use and - avoid the dis
putes that necessarily grow out Of more gen.
eral principles, and nowhere Is clear and
precise definition more needed than IN the
laws that relate to the organization Of
society and to the maintenance ofits organic
forms Form is the sole purpose OF them,
and we must view them formally and follow
them strictly, else the whole society Is apt
to be disturbed. No latitude or looseness of
administration of the law is tolerable when
! it endangers the peace and order of society !;
it ought to be so steady as not to be at all
shaken by partisan excitements.
This doctrine that "form is the sole
purpose" of election laws and that eve
must view them formally and follow them
] strictly was followed and applied by Chief
Justice Tilghman, of Pennsy lyania, to the
very point now under consideration, to wit,
the effect of marks TO invlidate election
/ tickets, and he declares that the law should
be construed as written, and when the law
says ballots having anything on them but
the names shall not be counted, that ballots
found with anything else on them must be
rejected. (See Commonwealth V. Woelpen,
3 ;. and r., 29.)
This was a case arising out of a corpora
ton election, and the form of ticket to be
used in the election was prescribed in by
law in the following words:
If besides the names there are other things
on the ticket or if two or more tickets are
found together such tickets are not to be
read off and are not to be counted.
The opinion of the Court was delivered
by Chief Justice Tilghman, one of the most
eminent Judges who ever sat on the bench
/ in Pennsylvania. He says:
The tickets in favor of those persons who
succeeded in the election had on them the
engraving Of an eagle. The Judge who tried
| the case charged the jury that these tickets
ought not to have been counted. The case
/ is certainly within the words of the law.
/ The tickets had something more than the
names on them. But Is it within the
meaning of the law? l think it is. This
engraving might have several i'll effects
! In the first place it might be perceived by
! the inspector even when folded. This knOwl-
edge might possibly influence him in re-
ceiving or rejecting the vote But in the
next place it deprived those persons who did
not vote the German ticket of that secrecy
which the election by ballot was intended
TO secure 20 them. A man who gave in
I ticket without an eagle was set doyn as an
anti German and exposed to the animositYI
Of the parry -A@et L. .esaas- CO * I-@1 tLe
symbols ojlvlfPssfcy Increase that heat which
u Is ffable to assuage. We see that at
the election some wore eagles in their hats
The case thus falling within the words and
practices of this kind leading to inconveni-
ence think the Court ought not exercise
/ its ingenuity in support of these tickets.
Let us at least prevent future alterations at
elections by laying down such plain rules
for the conduct of inspectors as cannot be
mistaken. | am for constituting the bylaw
as it is written and rejecting all tickets that
have anything on them more than the
names This objection strikes at the root of
! the election, for the evidence is that all the
tickets in favor of the defendants were
stamped with an eagle. Whatever, there
FORE may be the law on other points it is
clear upon the whole that the defendants
were not duly elected.
If you substitute the word "negro" for
! the word German" this opinion could not
be better written for the case. And when
we call to mind the recent murderous at
tempts to assassinate Dan Hughes, the
colored Democrat, near Greenville, Miss,
and fierce intolerance of negro Democrats
by the negroes all over the Union, we ap-
preciate the full value of the secret ballot
to the negro who is inclined to vote against
the prejudices of his race. And if it is the
object and purpose to make free, intelligent
and independent voters of the negro race
this protection should be thrown around
them. Negro suffrage presents the most
difficult questions in American politics, and
all coercive measures to subdue the senti-
ments of the whites or stimulate the ag-
gressiYeness in the blacks will irritate
public opinion, retard the healing processes
of time and render these difficulties tenfold
4 i
such a course. If by the adoption of Ohio
laws in Mississippi intelligence acquires an
advantage over ignorance, no honest patriot
for mere party gain should seek to disturb
that result.
The case of Drulinen VS.. State, 18th In
diana, which seems to limit distinguishing
marks to exterior marks, turns upon con-
struction of the Indiana statute, which
differs materially from the bylaw quoted in
the Pennsylvania case and also from the
Mississippi statute in that it only prohibited
marked tickets from being received and did
not, as the Mississippi statute does, say that
such ballots should not "be received or
counted" Judge Elliott, in delivering the
opinion Of the Court in this case, says:
The act requires all ballots to be written
or printed on plain white paper, without
any distinguishing marks or embellishments
thereon, and makes it the duty of the in
spector to refuse all ballots offered of any
other description, but does not authorize
the inspectors and judges to reject ballot
upon the discovery of such a mark or en-
beiishment at the time of counting out the
ballots which could not be seen by the in
spector at the time it was voted.
The mark in this case was ''The Union
City ticket printed at the head OF the
ticket, and the opinion of the Court shows
this was a distinguishing mark, aud that
the ticket should have been rejected If the
Indiana statute had, as the Mississippi
statute does, given power to refuse to count
as well as to refuse to receive illegal ballots
when discovered.
! But It is eontended that the marks found
upon the contestants tickets were put there
| by the printer, that they were printers
dashes such as they ordinarily use to divide
their subjects, and should not therefore De