The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1882-11-09
awALLAcE VS.. Mckinley

Under the above caption the. RepOsi-
tory of the 4th gave an article from the
Steubenville Herald, labOrlng to elect
Mckinley by the actual returns. The
Herald meets the fourteen votes thrown
out in Fairfield township, by saying it
has "heard of fifteen votes for McKiu-
ley that were not cOunted;" hut that pa
per does not locate them. We have
heard of none such; and the Repository
has not, as it does not locate any such
claim. We extract from the article:
The following from COoley's COnstitu-
tiOnal Limitations gives the law. as it
would probably be held in Ohio:
THE name of the ballot shOuld be
clearly expressed and ought to he fully
given, errors in spelling, however, will
not defeat the ballot, If the sound is the
same; nor abbreviatiOns, If such are In
common use and generally understood,
so that there can be no reasonable
doubt of the intent. Aud it wOuli seem
that where a ballot is cast, which con-
tains only the initials, it ought to be
sufficient, as it designates the person
voted for with the same certainty which
10 commonly met III contracts ana other
private writings, and the intent of the
voter cannot be reasonably open to
doubt. As the law only knows one
Christian name, the giving of an initial
TO middle name when the party has
none. or the giving of wrong initial
will not render the ballot nugatOry, nor
will a failure to give the addition TO a
name, such as Junior" render 1t void"
In the Eighteenth district we have
this state of facts: At Youngstown
the Judges, on counting up the vote,
found the following:
william Mckinley jr................4O 400
W. Mckinley. .........'..'.'.
Jonathan H. Wallace. ce................44 A!
Major j. II. Wallace. ...........a...
The Judges asked Attorney General
Nash what they should do, ana received
the following reply:
When the intent of the voter Is evil
dent, it should be carried out. Votes
cast for "Wm Mckinley" should be
counted for william Mckinley, Jr. Votes
cast for 81. H. Wallace should be count
ed for Jonathan H. Wallace.
[That was clear enough, and 408 votes
were canyassed for Mckinley, and 442
votes for Wallace. The COlumbiana
county canvass shows the following
ReD.1
william Mckinley, Jr., had 4, All votes.
Jonathan H. Wallace had 4,438 votes.
Lemuel T. Foster had 470 votes.
James A. Brush had 50 votes.
j. K. Burbick had vote.
Major Wallace had vote.
- Wallace had votes.
W. Fl. Wallace had votes.
W. W. Wallace had vote.
Jonathan Wallace had votes.
- Brush had 2 votes.
Mai. Wallace had votes.
]. II. Wallace had votes.
John H. Wallace had 3 votes.
Under the principles above given,
Wallace is clearly entitled to the votes
cast for Jonathan Wallace" and 81. H.
Wallace" which leaves Mckinley net
majority of one. We do not see where
he can claim any more on that return.
The final adjudication of the question
should settle the question, not only in
reference to this, but to all similar
cases. Party feeling or advantage
should have nothing to do with it, and
the officers who issue certificates of
election should have clear and certain
rule by which to govern themselves.
Since writing the above, we learn
that at least fifteen votes for Mckinley
in COlumbiana county were not counted
because of Irregularities, and the same
is probably In case elsewhere, so that
the final result can hardly be changed
in any event from that already report
questions settled which have been rails
ed.
The Herald loses sight of the princi-
pie in its anxiety to elect Mckinley
when the intent of the vote is evident,
it should be carried out" This is the
rule; and under this the one vote for
Major Wallace (the name he usually
goes by; votes for Wallace, and three
votes for Maj Wallace, 8 in all, must be
counted to Jonathan H. Wallace, which
will elect him by majority.
All contested election cases confirm
the rule and this application of it. This,
too, is taking the returns as they are
not even including the fourteen so wan
tOnly thrown out in Fairfield township
under the direction of General HOllc-
way.
In fact, under the actual state of the
case, as returned to the Secretary of
State, we cannot see how the Governor
and Secretary can hesitate to issue the
commission to Jonathan Il. Wallace.