Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-02-25

ment of litigation and preventing unlaw-
full interference with the ballots, that it
should be strictly complied
| with. Who're it is not
done the court, is allowing
duty properly performed to be overrid-
den by ballots tainted with duty not per-
formed. The ballots should therefore be
registered as a matter of law. This does
not contravene their admissibility where
there is other evidence of fraud or mistake.
The court of appeals of New York were
divided in opinion in recent case as to
whether the ballots could be used at all
where they were not protected by the safe
guards provided by law.
The presumption that officers have done
their duty in the custody of ballots is but
weak presumption. Where there is no
contest they are likely to remain the same,
but where there is contest there is
temptation at once to tamper with them.
| All it needs is the disposition and the
opportunity. When the statute states that
| the package of ballots must be safely
guarded it does not mean that they shall
| be kept so as to be secure where there is
no temptation to interfere with them and
against the officers who have charge of
bll6Ill, Oub d dlLSI dll pGISO1S. et dliISb UiIO
most experienced lock openers and ballot
box suffers; these are the men against
whom they are to be guarded, although
sometimes the question may arise who
shall guard the guards.
The presumption before referred to that
the ballots have been safely kept,
| is at once rebutted when examination
shows (in case of unsealed ballots and I'M
authenticated ballots) that the ballots
found differ with their duly certified re-
suits heretofore made in the returns.
| To award an election upon the oath of
proper custody is to make an election rest
upon the integrity of one man and the
boxes might as we'll be forwarded to this
Office as once without the safeguards of
numerous eanvassing boards acting pub
| licly, and have him, this one officer, count
| the votes himself secretly and declare the
result.
| At the very election in question we
elected member of congress, judge of
the supreme court, two judges of the dis
| trict court sheriff, county
| auditor, county surveyor,
superintendent of schools, three county
commissioners, two senators and
seven members af the legislature, and they
hold their offices including this defendant,
upon the returns made by small army of
| judges and clerks, some of them being
elected by a smaller vote than that OF de-
| PENDANT, and for this court to set aside
these returns as to- this defendant, without
any evidence of any mistake in the returns
except as to be inferred from the ballots
upon testimony of the city clerk and his
deputy that the ballots have not been tam
pered with so far as they know is to place
| the national, executive and legislative
power in the power of one or two men, Is
to give them sole appellate jurisdiction
from all the judges of election.
| Cato would not have been so trusted,
much less an ordinary man in times when
politics are VIGOROUSLY corrupt. Even
Cato laid it down as principle in ethics,
that a corrupt state justified corrupt citi-
zen. Many men regarded as quasi fair
citizens draw their line of virtue against
the commission of murder, larceny and
such crimes, but have for their acquaint-
ances men who commit those crimes. Who
shall say what any mans code of morals
| is? Among many it is regarded as rather
good Joke to win an election by fraud. l
do not, of course, charge any wrong upon
Mr.. Prendergast or his deputy in this
case, or upon Mr.. O'Gorman; but
every candidate running for Office has
all classes of people for his followers, often
more interested in the result than through
friendship, or expectancy of official favors,
or enmity to the opposite candidate, ready
to do anything.
All these considerations show how dan
gerous it is to allow the testimony of any
man, no matter how good, simply as to the
identity of ballots to overturn the acts, re-
turns and certificates of numerous sworn
officers, without proof de hors as TO mistakes
in the ballots.
When the envelope is properly sealed it
cannot be readily broken without the rup-
ture showing itself, and a
new envelope cannot be sub
stituted where the one fused is properly
enclosed, without detection. Such an en-
closure would be safe almost anywhere, but
how about an unprotected mass of ballots.
They have 10 ear marks. good shep
herd may identify his sheep. A good
shepherds dog can do it, not an ordinary
man or dog though, but to identify bal
lot, as unchanged is what neither shepherd
or dog could do as the exact appearance
of the name. The statute is very lame on
| the subject of their custody. 1t says they
shall be safelyE sealed, and safely kept,
but how safely kept? That is left to the
taste and judgement of the keeper.
| In the state of New York for over
hundred years Except in the city of Brook
| lynn, the ballots hare been required to be
destroyed Immediately after election, and
their preservation is of doubtful policy
merely to invite contests when an election
is close. Another thing to be noticed is,
that it is not made a crime to
stuff the ballot box after election.
The state supreme court in the Newton
Newell contest for the ssherifality of Da-
kota county, where the law as to sealing
does not apply, has decided that before
the ballots are admissible as evidence, their
identity must be established
beyond reasonable doubt
A reasonable doubt must exclude every
reasonable hypothesis to the contrary of a
position asserted, and the mind must be
so satisfied of she truth of the Iosiion
claimed that it would rely upon it in the
matters of the highest importance In
the present case, before the court.can rem
der decision in favor of plaintiff it must
be as well satisfied that the ballots pro-
duced are the same ballots, that there has
been no opportunity to tamper with them,
Of 1ar vrSon