The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-12-05
WAS TT A BALLOT-B OX?

conclusion that ballot-box is not ballot
| box, within the meaning of the law, though
containing sealed ballots, subject yet to the
order of the court and by the act of violence
| him as the undetermined evidence of an cleo
ton not yet completed. The order Of the
court that a recount should be made in an
swer to the petition Of one of the candidates
in the election was prima facie evidence that
the court was to determine the true result of
the election through methods prescribed by
law for the benefit of candidates who felt that
fraud, error or some other cause had perverted
the result In ordering the recount the court
must have expected. to find the ballots
in their proper places, inviolate, and all
in the custody of the official to whose care the
law commits them, and subject to the order
of the court. The careful provision made for
the preservation of the ballots cast in an
election means that they are thus preserved
for the purpose Of verifying the returns if
they be questioned, and to expose fraud if
any be attempted in the process of ballot
ing or counting. If the election was COM
plete and beyond the power of courts to in
terfere or candidates to appeal, the ballots
would be destroyed, or, in any event, they
would not be so very carefully filed away and
guarded.
Upon petition regularly made the court
ordered recount, not two recounts
OF dozen recounts, but one re-
count. The commissioners qualified
and appointed found the ballots
in their proper place and custody, with the
exception of the ballots from one precinct.
AS the recount progressed by precincts, the
ballots were again carefully placed under
seal and returned to box, key being COM
mitted to representatives Of each of the prn-
cipal parties. An even more elaborate for
mula was gone throughwith than was observed
when the ballots were strung and sealed when
the polls closed and the first count had been
made. Deliberate action of this kind is not
taken without reason. Suppose, for instance;
that some one, any one, had taken the courts
Interpretation of the action of Mr.. Holt, de-
stroyed the receptacle and broken the seals
between the time of the election and the
order for recount What would such a re-
count have been worth9 And how could any
body be punished for the "offense" if it is not
now to be regarded as an offenseg
ballot-box, or any receptacle for the preserva-
ton of the ballots, and to discharge his duties
as commissioner appointed to recount the
ballots, can proceed without an order to
second recount, and can with violence break
open the ballot box with an AK and overhaul
the ballots, in defiance of the order of the
court, how much more can man not on his
oath do the same thing, and not be held &C
countableY The question primarily involved
in the order for a recount sinks into nsignif-
canoe compared with the dangers to which
Judge Norton's vicious ruling may expose
our elections. Tt matters little whether Mr..
Ripley or Mr.. Pritchard be elected alderman,
on the first count or on the recount. The re-
countwas to determine whether there had been
errors Of any kind of magnitude to change the
result. The law had carefully provided for
just such an ISSUE and, to make justice POS
sible, had provided very heavy penalty
against any one molesting the ballotbox the
evident purpose being to preserve the ballots
intact. The ballots, as bits of paper, are of
no possible account after the first count is
made, unless it be certain that they have not
been tempered with by any one. The law
prescribes that, to preserve the ballots intact,
they shall be put under a SEAL This consti-
were the original receptacle. Anything would
be ballot box within the spirit and intent
of the law that might be employed to hold and
preserve the ballots. A coffee-pot has
been used for that purpose A
candle-box would do, boot or
a hat-anything, in short, that can be used
to keep meddesome hands out Of it. Mr..
Holt did a very extraordinary thing when he
destroyed the ballot-box in defiance of the or
der of the court; but the Criminal Court will
will do a much more harmful thing in ruling
that ballots on file cannot be protected by
law. 1t will open UP way for the vicious and
lawless to perpetrate the most daring outrages
upon popular suffrage and thus make formal
elections farce. The attitude of the court
for which the contempt was shown, and now
of the Criminal Court, has created the impress