Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-10-20
CARRIED UP AT LAST.
The Supreme Court Petitioned to
Pass on the Baker Law.
WANT TOGO BACK TO THE OLD ACT.
The Justices Receive the Papers, but Make
No Order.
SOME INTERESTING POLITICAL NEWS

begun yesterday by Attorneys William
McCrum and F. G. Osborn on behalf of
John B. jackson, D. F. Foster, G. c. Craft,
F. G. Osborn, William Macrum and others.
The attorneys presented bill in the high
court yesterday morning asking for an in
junction restraining the Allegheny County
Board of Commissioners and their clerks
from further advertising, procuring or dis
tributing any ballots or specimen ballots of
the description indicated for use at the COM
ing election, and to restrain them from fur
nishing for use at the election any ballots
other than those allowed BY the act of
Assembly passed July 2, 1889, regulating
elections in this State.
In their bill the plaintiffs state that as
the Commissioners are proceeding the bal
lots will be printed on heavy, sized paper,
instead Of the thin, unglazed paper hitherto
used for ballots, unnecessarily increasing
the expense of the election and the diff
Guilty of packing, transporting, handling
and returning of the ballots. The extra
expense is declared illegal and the increased
size of the ticket likely to defeat the will of
the people in the election by confusing the
By using the old-fashioned ballots it is
claimed this danger would be averted.
The Papers Received.
When the papers were handed up the Su-
preme Justices took them but made no order
concerning the case. What they will do is
problematical. A number of prominent at
torneys were asked yesterday what they
thought of the action, but all refused to
talk for publication. The general tone of
their conversation was, however. indicative
of doubt as to the propriety of the bill at
this time, just before the election. and it
seems to strike the lawyers that the Court
would on that account take no action.
Some of the lawyers thought the Court
would not say anything about 1t until after
election.
Expression as to the merits of the bill
was favorable. Those who had studied it
said its object was to show that the Baker
ballot law did not specifically repeal the
act of 1889, and that therefore portions of
the latter act were still in force and would
affect the size and form of the ballot.
Under the old law the term ballot was col
lectively applied to the several tickets
voted by each individual, but the act itself
speaks of them as tickets. The Baker law
uses the term ballot exclusively, and some
attorneys believe that when the question is
examined by the Supreme Justices they
will decide that ballot is not necessarily
one ticket
New Tickets Submitted.
In connection with their bill Attorneys
Macrum and Osborn submitted to the Court
q series of three tickets which they claim
would conform with the Baker law as well
as the act of 1889, and at the same time
would be less confusing to voters and cost
one-fourth the money the tickets ordered
by the County Commissioners will cost.
One ticket contains the Presidential cleo
tors, arranged compactly, so as to reduce the
size to the smallest possible compass The
second ticket contains the names of county
candidates only, and is slightly larger than
the old county ticket The third is the
judicial ticket, only about inches square
Each ticket contains the names of candi-
dates of all parties, and complies with the
Baker law in all features except form and
size.
1t was reported yesterday that United
States District Attorney Lyon and Attor-
ney M. A. Woodward were interested in
the case. Both gentlemen deny any con-
nection with it.
Mr.. Woodward, when asked about it said:
my name was used in connection with this
proceeding without my authority. I was
approached by Mr.. Macrum and permission
to have my name used asked. I told him
that in my opinion the Supreme Court had
no jurisdiction in the matter, but thought it
should be referred to our Common Pleas
Courts. I had no idea that they would
present the matter before the Supreme
bench, for it is generally conceded that this
is not the proper place to remedy any mis-
takes that have been made in constituting
the act I think the Supreme Court will
return the papers with this recommends
tion.
First Glance Alarming.
cat first glance the large ballot seemed
to me mistake, but after examining into |
the matter came to the conclusion. that |
having all the names on one ticket is the |
best possible form of ballot. There was !
one point which all the highest authorities |
in the State agree upon. That is the mis- |
take in the reading of the law regarding the |
grouping of candidates. In talking over
tine matter with some of the Justices
it seemed that in their opinion the candi-
dates should, under the law, be grouped ac-
cording to their Offices In the specimen
ballot both the Congressman at Large and
the Supreme Court Judges are grouped
with the Presidential electors. Now, if
man desires to vote the electors in one
party and the congressman or Supreme
Judge in another. he Will have to make q
cross at each electors name, instead OF be-
ing able to vote the group of electors with
one croSa On this Doint I wOuld he willing |