Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-11-25
A RED TAPE sUPERsTITIoN.

We are glad to see from some comments
in the New York Ad0ertiser that there is
disposition at least to combat very
common tendency in the practice of elec-
ton returns to make very slight inaccur-
acy fatal to the intent of the voter The
case in which it occurs is typical one;
and serves to illustrate the general ten
dency to place red tape uniformity above
common-sense conclusion as to the in
tent of a voter.
The case arose in the election of an As
semblyman in the First Onondaga district
of New York. The Republican candidate
was David A. Munro, Jr., and the pre-
sumption is that all the ballots, being
printed together, adopted one form of CIV
ing his name. Some of the election boards,
however, returned the Republican votes
as cast for D. A. Munro; others as cast for
David A. Munro; and others as cast for
David A. Munro, Jr. The total of the votes
for these different forms of the same name
constituted an undoubted plurality over
the other candidates; but the Board of
Canvassers divided up the vote and issued
a certificate of election to the Democratic
candidate. A court has issued man.
damus to correct this action, and it is prob
able that the theory on which it is based
will be fully tested.
The Ad0ertiser says that the action
''shows clearly desire on the part of the
Democrats to capture the Assembly at all
hazards" The remark is justified by the
probability that the variation in the form
of the name was due to the election boards
rather than to the actual vote. But there
is a general idea that if the votes cast for
candidate vary, by some giving the in
itials and others giving the full Christian
name, the election boards and canvassers
must presume that they are votes for two
different persons. Whether this idea has
any foundation in judicial rulings, we do
not know; but whether it has or not it is a
mere superstition of red-tapeism.
There is no such presumption in any
ordinary concern. If one New York
newspaper speaks of David Bennett Hill.
and another speaks of David B. Hill,
both referring to him as political leader,
there is not in the combined circle of their
readers one man who will be willing to
stultify himself by asserting that the
papers must refer to two different per-
SONS, even though the San should des-
cribe him as an angel of light and
the Tribune should refer to him as
the side partner of the Prince of Darkness.
If one letter is sent through the mails to
DIR. Chauncey NJ. Depew, and another
comes at the same time to c. NJ Depew,
President, New York Central Railroad
Company, the letter carrier, who is SO
stupid as to deliver one letter to the rail-
way president and then go hunting
through New York to find the witty after
dinner orator in another person would
soon be hunting new position. But in
the matter of election returns, where the
presumption that the same person is in
tended is far stronger, there are plenty of
people to contend that the impossible and
incredible presumption must be taken as
the basis of official action.
There is no reason why good sense
should not rule in the counting of votes
as well as in any other concern. 1t is to
be hoped that the New York courts will
overset this superstition so completely
that it will never be heard of again.