Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-03-30

Impulse 10 save the vote, ana make II
effectual. He must SO act in defiance
so In opposition to his own better knowledge
that he has no right to complain of the loss
| of his franchise, the exercise of which he has
| wantonly misapplied."
The case arose under public statute which
prohibited the election to an Office of superin.
tendent of the poor, in county of any super.
visor of town, or ward, in q city in such
county, and the points decided were
that Chute, who was Ia supervisor
of a ward in the city of Schenectady, was incl
igible to an election to the Office Of superin-
tendent of the poor, and therefore not entitled
thereto though receiving the highest number
of votes therefor, but that the electors Of such
ward were Lot chargable upon any presump-
tions of law or fact with any notice or knowl-
edge of the fact that he was such supervisor,
or Of the existence or operative effect of the
public statute which made that fact adisqual-
flying one, SO as to nullify the votes which
were given to him In that ward, and thereby
give the Office to his competitor, who but for
votes to entitle him to an election. If the
apou Sass the pss doctrine of that ease seuS ess
the relator has no right to the office of lieu
tenant governor, though Mr.. Gilman may have
no legal right to hold it. See Gulick vs.. New
IA, Ind. 9S, subsequently followed by the
same court in Carson VS.. McPhileridge, 15
Ind, 327, and Price vs.. Baker, Al Ind, Str;
while concedlng this rule TO be that inelegibil.
ity from caase unknown to the voters, such
as infancy or want of naturalization,
will only operate to defeat the election OF the
person affected by it, 1t was held in case the
lnelegibility arose out of holding public
office which is made q cause of disqualification
by some public law that the electors within
the territorial limits of the Jurisdiction of
such officer are chargeable with notice as to
who is the incumbent of the office, and
also that the statute disqualified him from
cast by them IN his favor, therefore, will be
treated as nullitory. Tbs doctrine of
these cases Is disapproved in that
OF the People ex rel. Furman vs..
Chute, above cited, and is undoubtedly against
the general current of judiciary opinion and
authority In this country which upholds as
more in harmony with the spirit of our insti-
tutions, the rule thata majority of the votes
cast for an ineligible candidate at q popular
election, in the absence of any statute
declaring them void, while conferrlng no
right TO tas Office, are still so far
efectual as to prevent minority candidate
being elected,- ,-McLaughl vs.. Sheriff of
Pittsburgh; Mclaughlin vs.. Penn. State, 270;
Saunders vs. Haynes, Ii Cal. 155; Crawford
Vs. Dunbar, 81 i'd, 81; State vs. Giles, Wis.
112; State ex rel. off. vs.. Smith, Il Wis.
497; State VS.. sweninger, 10 Gro. %;
People vs.. Molliter, % Mich. S4l;
State vs. Gastniell, 20 Lou. ia; Fish
vs. Collins, 2 i'd. ss9; Opinion of Judges of
vs.. Bidwell, AZ Miss. 2o6 In re- Corlss, II R.
I. GA: Cooley on Const. Inns. 62O: Dillon,
Mem. Corps. 1875. In this State the question
as yet is an open one, so that the point for ad-
judication upon the facts in the case at bar may
and ought to be ruled upon reason and princi.
pie having reference to our own
laws and the policy they indicate.
Our statute regulating elections (ch.
l, gen. stats. enacts ''that in all elections,
unless it is otherwise provided, the person
having the highest number of votes for any
Office, shall be deemed and declared elected
(sec. 49," The plain purpose ofthis provision
is to secure in places of public trust repre-
sentatives of the popular will, chosen by a
plurality of the qualified electors, who may
see fit to exercise the right of voting, in the
manner provided by law. Under ii no one
can be deemed the choice of the
electoral body, or elected to any office, who
has not received plurality of the legal votes
cast by that body. The statute prescribes
the manner In which every elector shall exer-
else his right of voting, which shall be by a
secret ballot, the form and character of which
Is prescribed (gen. stats, ch. /, sec. 10y. It
must be "a paper ticket containing, written Or
printed, the names of the persons for whom
the elector intends to vote, with designation
of the office to which each person so named
is intended by him 10 be chosen" and every
names for any office than the
number of persons required to fill the
same is declared to be void to that extent, but
no fmther. (Secs. 10 and 11.) For tho pur
pose of determining the choice of the electors,
no provision is made for inquiring into
their motives and intentions, or their means
of knowledge concerning the qualifications
OF the persons voted for, other than what is
furnished by the ballots themselves. That
none such was intended to be allowed is evil
dent from the nature aud character of the se-
cret ballot, which is guaranteed to every vot.
er as an inviolable right by the constitution,
for that precludes the possibility of identify
ing the vote, and prevents an effective ligisla-
tion outside the ballot itself concerning the
intention with which it was cast, or the
knowledge which was had by the one who
gave it. Every ballot, therefore; cast at any
election, which substantially conforms to all
the requirements of the statutes, and which
does not disclose upon Its face any fact max.
ing 1t void, such as the ineligibility to an
election OF the persons voted for, from which,
possibly, q knowledge of that fact
on the part of the voter might
be inferred, and a presumption raised OF an
intention to waste his vote, must be taken as
a valid and bona fde expression of the voters
choice OF the person therein namsd for the
otnce designated, and cannot be treated as
nullity. 1t cannot be presumed, in opposi-
ton to the declared purpose of the vote its.
self, that 1t was cast in bad faith and with no
intention to make 1t effectual, as might per.
hans ha thQ with nj,
knowledge that the person voted for was In
fact and in law ineligible to an election. To
allow such q presumption to nullify more
than half the votes given at State election,
as we are called upon to do in this case,
would be doing violence to the fundamental
principles OF popular government which, in
recognizing the fitness and capacity of the
people for self government, neces.
sarily implies that the right Of suf.
frage will be exercised in good faith and
in accordance with the best judgment and in.
formation of the electors. Conaeding, there
fore, the respondents ineligibiity as claimed
It better accords with the policy of our cleo.
tion laws and the spirit of our political insti.
tutions to hold that those who voted for him
acted from want of knowledge or some mis-
apprehension of law or fact, affecting his elig-
ibillty, whereby the election has pro red fail
ure, than to attribute to them such wanton
aptSS Va tuO SlSStiNC AIauSulSc rs WOulU U9 lIu-
piled in knowingly wasting their suffrages
upon one disqualified from receiving them,
and thereby give to the relator an election
which is evidently not the result of the dslib.
crate choice of the electoral body.
As further bearing upon the question under
consideration, 1t is to be noted that the fram.
ers of the constitution, in creating the disqual-
ifcation mentioned in section 8, Of article 4,
OF that instrument, made no provision for
| v,tv ffx-tv, al 1%n,e l-l&
person resting under such disqualification,
while in creating, in nearly identical language,
like disability in respect to justices Of the
supreme court and district judges (articls 8,
section 11), they expressly provided that "all
votes given to either of them for any elective
office, other than judicial ons, during their
continuance In Office, shall be void.n
The implication is strong, II not conclusive,
that ths rule thus expressly adopted In the lat.
case arising under the provisions of the for.
mer section.