The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-06-02
THE sPRING-BACK TICKET LEGAL.
Judge FOrkner Rules in Favor of the Defend
ant in the Heiny WaSSOn Contest

In the Circuit Court, on Saturday. the acting
Judge Hon. Mark E. Forkner, of New Castle
ruled in favor of the defendant, in the quo
warranto proceeding instituted by Eli Heny
against w. g. WATSON for possession of the
country treasurer's office holding that the So
called Spring back ticket voted by the Repub
licans of this county in 1882 was legal and valid
The decision is of particular interest ut this
time, insomach as there are other contests de
pending upon the issue, and it was one of
the points involved in the recent English
Peelle congressional contest The ruling
of the court briefly, is as follows There is no
charge or imputation of fraud. or error in the
votes cast or in counting the same. Neither is
there any charge of any actual undue influence
upon the voters of coercion or intimidation
other than may be implied from the kind and
character of the ballots used by the partisaus of
the defendant 1t is insisted, however, by the
plaintiff, that g. 900 of the ballots cast for the
defendant were printed on material other than
plain white paper in violation of the statute and
that for this reason these 900 ballots were
illegal and should not have been counted to the
defendant The tickets were of the required
uniform width. and were printed at the Hassel
man journal Company, under contract with the
Republican central committee of Marion county.
There is evidence that the committee re
quested or directed the tickets to be printed
respect. 1t is testified by the president of
the Hasselman journal Company that
he bought this paper for this
specified purpose, with no special design other
than that it was of size that would cut Just
sixteen tickets without waste. This being fair
statement of what the evidence proves, the
question arises at once if this plain white paper
without any distinguishing marks, was within
the meaning of the statute. The statute is that
all ballots which may be cast at any election
hereafter held in this State shall be written OF
printed on plain white paper of uniform width
of three inches, without any Distinguishing
mark thereon. What is meant by plain white
paper is matter of construction by the court.
In the investigation of statutes. if the words
used express clearly the sense and intention of
the law, they must always govern. 1t is not
permitted to interpret what is plain and mani
fest as it stands in need of no Interpretation.
When an act is conceived in clear and precise
terms, when the sense is manifest and leads 10
nothing absurd, there can be no reason to refuse
the sense which it naturally presents to the mind.
After quoting number of authorities, the court
comes % the conclusion that the paper used by
the Republicans for printing their tickets at the
last county election comes within the range of
papers covered by the statute, and is plain white
paper When it is said that the statute should be
construed to mean plain white ordinary news
paper, it is sufficient to say that the Legislature
has not said go. Within the range of plain white
printed papers are newspaper grades varying
greatly in weight The Legislature has used
term covering all these grades of PAPER, and it Is
not for the courts to adopt one to the exclusion
II all the others.
The court therefore holds that the paper used
plain, white paper, without any distinguish
ng mark or other establishment thereon, and
that the ballots were lawful and valid ballots
Ind decision is therefore rendered for the de
iendant
A motion for q new trial was at once argued
and overruled and an appeal granted to the ST.
preme Court