The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1891-12-30

to he a legal exercise Of tho right OF suHraHe,
n dSi MAJ a. sh ali 9fH Sshsr ,en
fest that the Legislature has utterly faiied TO
ss TRe s ssSfesy IN that this dis
regard Of both the letter and the spirit Of the
sssps p saSs pe ss g. III
tSat inspestor election shall deposit
so Sa'H IN eG ballot So1 a day any
which is not properly endorsed and numberssdd
IN the 81
ballet box OF permit sny 0t dsy
s sias ths ssFash win Scarcely be claimed
ts% e ef that they came wtSP tie
visions Of section ii. and consequently tho
esEs fhe% IN eRS Ballot os
when offered BY the voters: moreover. they
had what ths statute Gas .bey baSE
poiiinE places Where they we're used special
s apd could bs TssdS
others and thus the Improper
Il viii he seen. upon q careful reading, Of the
statute that the Legislature has saref,uily pro,
estimate Of the actual legal vote In two cases;
s T heSs h hs tas sr * GT bae
Or any paster attached by the yGtsF tS or
s sadt e e b shs
Secondly. where there is distinguishing
marx the SutsSe sn q vs ssns to az
y waSn w may ca nSs e. e ss1
others time Of voting q the contents =. sS Of
lawAin acquiring secrecy. 49,.
afn to tas es the @ me-
defeat the policy Of the aw tho oi as sne
statute. therefore made il the duty Of the
lots prepared for and endorsed with the desig.
nation or number Of another district. TO refuse
XSS not ses s so s s sht pf Ss ns
and tender ballot with the proper ehoorse-
But the inspectors did receive the, ballots and
put them into the ballot box. and the remain.
Ing question y whethefF, they hey, e9 %bcb aw wa
sSer dSty to psfSse when offered BY the
clear Tss Il tss 95fss By
the Inspectors in these terms: ,,,.u
The votes for the several Sand * snail
upon the several ballots No ballot that has
not the printed official endorsement email 70
counted except such as are NSIea y of f1s
s snes With the provisions OF See''0n q '' ''''
a' We are unable to construe this language.
other way than as the clear and positive man
date Of the Legisatnrs t9 the eanyas S e; ;t TO
EssGt epa or snS
and number Of another and a different polling
place election district than the one s, where ,er
hidden the elector to cast such ballot. lthas
prohibited the inspectors from placing It n
The V case could be no stronger had i in terms
declared such ballot absolutely void Tor all
purposes.
But it is said that this result will disiranchise
e ea Sa ifssFk h s1s @ thst ese
b. tie sse through 70 either design accident
OF ballots which the law declares shall not be
Eau tSsss the Ssots Isl
some preconcerted arrangement between the
County Clerk wh use names
using them might be as Innocent then as they
appear to be in the case at bar but to hold. M
aa 20 sq
t that the elector viii not tiindly rely upon any
one not even the Sset9n h oise6ss srda t as
% wt 1s marI
it or an improper endorsement, he Is not obliged
e vote It but h ballet a
IL
vote, ut all. It was their duty to see TO to
patt ha at ths n conformity
with the statute. They must have known; or
at'least could easily have ascertaned that the
could have used paster ballots containing the
some one OF the other zee Official ballots IN
the hands OF the inspectors. and which. az
concede; contained the proper endorsement doris r
turned to the inspectors
That the use OF these ballots was at least
wholly unnecessary and thought!ess act on
~ evident. But even il it could be said that
these electors had no knowledge or means of
meg sna ha hey could a whou
Inconvenience provide themselves with ballots
ssss 10 the hoS fsSutts Would T3 Ie s
e enc than that the , fHndament =,
ssSonpd be sa n and in the strasseo
save these votes by judicial construction the
the statute which might revive evils far more
dangerous to the public welfare fha 1 car tnp pos
sSX Of Few In Single
county cast by voters who. at least. as all
must admit, neglected to observe important
CONDUCT OF elections should be 80 con.
s stes Ct o. r the etsen
In the exercise OF his right to vote. and. further
that any law fairly open to such an objection
would be In conflict with the Constitution. But
when we keep in mind the fact that the statute
now under consideration was intended to pre-
vent corruption and the consequent debase-
ment OF the franchise 1t was not unreasonable
to provide that an elector attempts to exercise
HIS right In such a way as to reveal the con-
tents OF his ballot or to make subsequent iden-
LITIGATION possible tho inspectors shall not re.
ceiye II, and II received, IL shall not be counted.
There Is n view Of the case ich was not
suggested in tho argument and does not ap;
pear in the briefs Of counsel. but originated
with members OF the court. that We have care
fully onsidered. IT is suggested that when
section ~ speaks Of certain ballots that the
inspectors are not to receive. and section ~
OF certain ballots that the ,cnnyassers are not
to count. reference Is made only to unofficial
ballots other than those provided for In sec
ton II. This is not tho natural and obvious
meaning OF tho language used. and such II
construction cannot be reached without sup,
plying words that the Legislature has not
used. The ballot which the inspector
described as ono which Is not prop;
which the inspector shall not countunder sec,
ton 81 Is there described rs one that has not
the printed official endorsement" 30 far MS
these two sections require inspectors to refuse
votes offered and canvassers TO exclude votes
found in the box. not regular by reason OF
neglect to comply with the statute In respect