The Opelousas courier., 1882-10-28
The Election Law Of 1882.

ers, section 4 of the act has been the sub
ject of the bitterest and most unrelent-
ing criticism. 1t reads thus:
That all the names Of persons voted
for shall be printed on one ticket OF bal
lot of white paper, of uniform size and
quality, to be furnished by the Secretary
of State, at a cost of five per ccntum
above the actual cost of said paper ana
the names of persons voted for, and the
office for which they are voted, shall be
accurately specified; Sc, &c.
This was IL Democratic measure,
adopted in a caucus of the party, and
receiving the vote of every Democrat in
the Legislature. Before criticisiDg it so
severely, we think it would have been
nothing more than fair to have inquired
into the motives which influenced the
Legislature in adopting it. Every man
conversant with the way ill which elec-
tions have been conducted in st. Landry
since 1868, must have noticed the pecu-
liar devices resorted to by party man
ayers in getting up tickets for the elec-
tions. Generally, about aSweek before
the election, the Republican managers
would send an agent to New Orleans,
who would return just before the elec-
ton with sufficient number of ''regu-
lar" tickets for the party in the parish.
These tickets were printed on peculiar
paper which it was impossible to pro-
cure in the parish. At the head OF the
ticket was generally wood cut OF Grant
or some other leader of the Republican
party, and ON the reverse of the ticket
were peculiar stripes, and sometimes
the stars and stripes themselves. These
tickets the leaders would distribute to
the masses, and hence there WAS no trou
BILE to know who did and who did not
vote the regular ticket on election day.
1t is we'll known fact that at the last
election, in this town, several OF the reg
ular Republican tickets were found in
the box with the Democratic ticket past
ed inside. These tickets were voted by
colored men, who desired to vote the
Democratic ticket, but who disliked or
were afraid to do SO, because the party
managers or their agents present would
have noticed it. 1t must not be sup
posed the Republicans alone did this.
The Democrats also got at it, and at the
election just referred to, they had the
backs of their tickets equally plainly
marked. The result was that their party
managers could stand around polling
place, and as soon as the vote was de-
posted tell exactly whether the voter
had voted the regular ticket. The re-
suit was that to vote free of the surveil
lance OF party managers was almost an
impossib,lity.
!. The object OF the act of 1882 was to
break this up etfectually, by requiring
| ali tickets to be Son white paper of uni
form size and quality" thus giving every
man the right of voting the ticket of his
choice, free from the surveillance OF
party managers. The very provision so
harshly criticised in the act of 1882 has
| had to be adopted in other States of the
! Union, and for the same purpose. Says
Judge Cooley, in his work on Constitn-
tional Limitations, page Cos, which has
been called to our attention:
"Iu order to secure as perfectly as
| possible the benefits anticipated from
this system (yoting by bailot), statutes
have been passed in some of the States,
which prohibit ballots being received OIL
counted unless the same are written or
printed upon white paper, without any
marks or figures thereon, intended te
distinguish one ballot from another
These statutes are simply declaratory o.
a constitutional principle of voting By
ballot, and which ought to be inviolable
whether declared or not. In the absence
of such statute, all devices by whicl
party managers are enabled to distin
guish ballots in the hands of the voter
and thus determine whether he is voting
for or against them, are opposed to thu
spirit of the Constitution. The
system of ballot voting rests upon thu
idea that every elector is to be entirely
at liberty to vote for whom he pleasel
and with what party he pleases, ant
that no one is to be in position to ques
ton his independent action, either thel
or ut any subsequent time"
This, we think, is all that need be sai'
i'm vindication of Democratic Legisla
J tare for requiring the ballots to be "oI
white paper of uniform size and quality.
The object was simply to secure ever,
man the right of voting as he pleased.
But" say some of the critics, yo'
| must vote printed ticket; you can
| scratch out one name and insert anothe
! If you do, your ballot will not be count
! ed.n We respectfully beg TO differ wit
! these critics. We say that it is not so
that if twenty names were printed on
E ballot, and the voter were to scratch on
every one of them and write the name
! OF twenty others in their place, the com
, missioners of election would be COMPEL
, ed to receive the ballot and count i
ANY voter desiring to test the questio
can do 80 ut the Congressional electlo
!, on the 9TH of November, and we guar
. antee him his vote will be counted. N