New-York tribune., 1891-12-26
SAXTON ON THE BALLOT Id w.
HE EXPLAINS HOW II CAN BE PERFECTED.
INCONSISTENCY OF THE DEMOCRATIC POSITION
A BLANKET BALLOT NEEDED

pRoH THE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT OF THE rRIBuNE.l
| Albany Dec. 25.-The action of the Republican
State Committee Tuesday last in pledging Its sup
port 10 every effort that may be made to amend the
Ballot Reform law with the object Of preventing cor
rupton at elections has been praised everywhere In the
State and nowhere SO than in the State capital
whose inhabitants have had under their eyes Governor
! Hs attempts to count in" Democratic Legis-
| lature. Mr Hill and his fellowDemocrats who are
In the plot cannot deny that upon the face OF the eec
ton returns, the voters Of the State were shown 10
have elected Gilbert A. Deane, John ii. Derby, Frank
lin ID. Sherwood and Rufus t. Peck all Republicans as
members OF tic State Senate. Yet upon the plea
that the Ballot Reform law violated IN one way OF
another in respect to the election of Messrs Deane
| Derby and Peck and that MI. Sherwood Is Ineligible
the Democrats ask the courts to give the certcaies
OF election Democratic candidates for Senator VINO
received q less Dumber of votes than their Repuoh
can opponents.
But Judge Barnard of the Supreme Court Demo
crat has made decisions which VIII prevent the Demo
cratic party from using the BallotReform law as an
instrument to deprive the voters Of their choice OF
| members Of the Legislature. Consequently Judge
Barnard has been denounced in lively way during
the last fortnight by good many Of his fenow-Deno
crats Senator Saxton, the author OF the Balio'-he
form law who surely ought TO know what was ntehded
by its provisions sustains Judge Barnard in his dccl
sion. Speaking about this decision at MS nome III
| Clyde yesterday, Senator saxton said:
"The Democrats profess great alarm lest the enect
OF Judge Barnard's decision with regard to marker
ballots should be 10 destroy the secrecy OF the paOI
This is very amusing 10 those who know the history
of the ballot law. The original act OF lo9o was hAea
ND I'm the Executive Chamber at Albany, and sent to
The Legislature with sort OF an Official MANIFESTO
warning us not to change word, II we did not want
to invite the Governors veto. That act did not con
tain any provision making marked ballots VOID IL
was careful insist upon the paster' but IL forgot to
prohibit voters from placing marks on the paser.
The experience which gained from the fall elecuon
of 1890 convinced all that effort should be made
| to prevent marking for identification The marked
ballot amendments were prepared by me, without any
suggestion on the part Of another person also
prepared amendments which were adopted, prohibit
ing the marking Of pastors II had not occurred 10
any Democrat, far as knew, to amend the law
these respects until the amendments were presented
In the Senate"
"Thc Democrats say that these marks In Dutchess
County were upon the official ballots. and not upon
the pastersn said The Tribune correspondent, "and
they argue that the banketbalot could be marked In
the same way"
"That might be- replied Senator Saxton, "and my
reply is that quad-marks upon blanket ballot would
not distinguish these ballots, since a blanketballo,
would contain the names Of the candidates of every
political party. But where, In the Dutchess County
cases, these quad marks appeared upon Prohibition
and Republican ballos-that is, upon separate ballots
they did HARM A mark made by mistake coud
only do harm, no matter what the marx might De-
when there separate ballots to be distinguished
from each other Neither oould there have been the
difficulty IN the Onondaga County case over transposed
ballos IL We had the blanket ballot. am very glad
10 see public sentiment raying the support Of the
blanket ballot. Governor Hill vetoed blanket baot
bill OF mine but perhaps Governor Flower may be more
mercful. l shall introduce blanket ballot Dill as
soon as the Legislature meets"
Specifically, what do your amendments 10 the
Ballot Reform law this year dof'
"They nuIlify ballot, paster affixed
thereto on which mark has been placed by the
voter or 70 his knowledge, with the intent that 1t
afterward be identified as the ballot voted by MN.
This presents two questions OF fact whenever ballot
Is marked: a. AS to whom the marking was done
by (2) as to the intent. Boards Of canvassers con-
not decide those questions because ) their functions
are not judicial but purely ministerial; 2 they have
no power TO take testimony of any KIND; C3l the
statute expressly directs that such ballots should
be counted and their validity determined
by the Supreme Court. such boards ought not 10
have the power to determine such questions, be-
cause they are composed Of actively engaged in
partisan politics. who are not chosen with reference
Ia their judicial ability, and who, as rule, have
not the learning experience 10 ft them TO aeclde
important questions that often presented IN con-
tested election cases.
at was not my intention the intention OF the
matters upon insufficient proof. The idea was that
such a matter should be tried and determined upon
the testimony the same any other question OF TACT.
think ballot marked for Identification should be DO
cared void because that Is violation OF the secrecy
OF voting which is the essence OF the ballot but
would not have 1t declared void WITHOUT
proper evidence. certain newspaper Is advochu
an amendment declaring every ballot Void uiat Is
marked in any way. 1t would be gross outrage upon
citizen and violation of the constitutional nights 10
nuify his vote without any wrong doing on his part
Think of disfranohlsingsa because his ballot hap
pens to have mark upon It'll The mark may nave
been placed there accidentally 1t may have been
placed there by the election officer with the design OF
Ssfranchisng the voter. The innocent would be pun
,sbed for the crime OF another Besides, marking Is
generally done by writing some name upon the ballot
or psser Shall say that the voter shall not wnte
a name upon the balotl i remember when ths Bauot
law OF 1858 was before the Assembly. There was no
express provision which permitted the voter to Wnts
or paste upon the ballot any name he pleased. Ny
Democratic friends were great distress for fear the
voter was TO DO deprived Of what they called "a sacred
right
Other States have not found 1t necessary TO insert In
their ballot laws any provision nulfying marked ballots
whyf they have the blanket ballot and do not
use the paster. do not know whether the marks upon
the rejected ballots In Fishldu upon the official
ballot or upon the paster but do know that the marks
ARE almost always put upon the paster which is given
to the bribed voter He cannot be depended On him
self to place anything the official ballot. 1 have
never thought that the official ballot would absolutely
prevent corruption. Even without the paser schemes
could be devised occasionally Identifying blanket
ballot But the would be rare 1t IS necessary
also 10 back up the secret system OF voting by strong
and comprehensive Corrupt Practices act. .
Our constitutional provision with reference TO
contested elections relating seats in the Legislature IS
responsible for much OF the trouble we are In The
PARTY getting majority OF certificates at the outset Is
sure OF maintaining itself in power The contestants
come TO the Legislature for justice sometimes b9t
they seldom get ID II they represent the party In the
minority The party organizing the House takes care
Of It's own 1t adjudges its own case and Of course
political morality to decide in such matter in favor OF
right and against the party. That Is why there was
90 great a struggle over the certificates granted by
boards of canvassers. II enough seats be stolen