The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1881-03-03

The decision Of the Supreme Court IN
the case Of Oglesby, District Attorney,
VS. Sigman, Commissioner of Elections,
reported in our legal column, is Of much
interest beyond the legal profession Ii
! involves a construction of the election
law of 1880, and especially of those
clauses of it that direct the rejection OF
all ballots having on them tmarks OF
devices of any kind whereby one ticket
may be distinguished from another
The court declares this provision in
the highest degree mandatory, and that
the duty of enforcing it is devoived upon
all officers and courts to which the ques-
ton of the legality of tickets so marked
NAV be submitted. 1t declares that
such tickets should be rejected when
the votes are first counted by the In
spectors at the various precincts. II
not rejected by them, the duty of rejec-
ton is imposed upon the Commissioners
formerly Registrars, when the ballot
boxes and tickets are sent up to the
county seat, and if these latter officers
fail to reject, the courts must do so in
any legal contest that NAV arise as to
the result of the election. The size or
nature of the mark or device used Is
wholly immaterial. Any mark, or any
device whereby one ticket may be dis
tinguished from another that is un-
marked, is fatal, whether it be found
ON the inside or the outside of the
ticket. The object Of the law says the
court is two-fold, first, to preserve the
secrecy of the ballot, and second, to pre-
vent masses of voters from ''being vot-
ed by marks on tickets which shall in
dictate to them what ticket has been
prepared for their use by party mana
gers, and thus compel an intelligent
selection by the voter of the candidates
for whom he desires to vote"
That the construction of the law thus
declared is the true one there can be no
doubt. Indeed the language of the stat
ute is too plain to admit of miseonsiruc
ton, and the only thing surprising about
it is that anybody should ever have en-
tertained any other idea.
Our opinion of the wisdom of this
legislation is well known. We think it
bad law, and we would like to see it
repealed, but so long as it remains on
the statute book it must be and it should
be rigidly observed and enforced.
We are glad that the decision has
been made, both because it settles a
question of great practical Importance
and because it completely juslifes the
position taken by Gen. Chalmers in his
contest with Mr.. Lynch.
Chalmers had a popular majority over
Lynch as shown by the returns in the
Secretary of States office, even allowing
to the latter all the marked ballots cast
for him, but as all Of Lynch's tickets
were marked (the tickets having been
specially prepared for him and being
the only marked tickets used III the
State) Gen. Chalmers felt it to be du-
ty he owed to the laws of the State and
to the party whose nominee he was, to
make the point-for so doing he was
subjected to most unmerited criticism
by some of our party organs. We hope
that those who thus censured will note
the fact that his position has been com
pletely indicated by the court of last
resort, whose decision on the subject
must be accepted as fixing the meaning
IF the statute.
The principal opinion was delivered
BY Judge Campbell, and a concurring
opinion was filed by Judge George.
Chief Justice Chalmers took no part in
The decision.