Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1893-12-06
The Deerhead Election.


The republicans of Barber county
seem to be bothered very much about
the way populists treat the Deerhead
election. SO much so indeed that their
mouthpiece in this city rears back and
eLlits the following wall:
| The populisis of Barber county have wasted
| an unnecessary quantity OF eye water over the
| sample ballots cast in Deerhead, and the at
| tempt of republicans to defeat the will of the
people" Row about those ballots cast in
other precincts which were not counted be-
cause the voter failed to mark the ballot as
prescribed by law? Was not the will of some-
| body defeated? When the mistake of the vot-
er WAS in the interest OF the popuIist candi-
dates did any populist step up and say count
| that ballot for the candidate whom the voter
attempted to vote for? But when a mistake
| is made that is in the interest Of the republi-
can candidates the populists rise up on their
hind legs and spit cotton and wall that tine
republicans are trying to defeat the will of the
! people" Suppose Deerhead had rcpudiated
| the Australian system of voting and held the
election under the old system. The Will OF the
! people would have been expressed, but would
the self-constltuted, fiannel-mouthed populist
| judges who have made street decisions in the
| present case have held for moment that it
was legal election? When the law prescribes
the manner of voting it should be followed, or
else the law is of no use, and ali laws might as
we'll be abrogated. WHAT was the use of en-
acting the law unless it is the intention of be-
Ping governed by it? We notice that the popu-
lists are always clamorous for the strict en-
| forcement of laws until it is contrary to their
political success. The commissioners doubt
less had no right TO go behind the returns and
refuse to count the Deerhead vore but the
fact that they did count the vote does not leg
| alize the election in that precinct If Tonk
Mills has even a majority of one of the legal
votes cast for sheriff on November 9Th, no re-
publican will gainsay his right to assume the
duties of the Office. 1T OF. Boyd received a
majority of the legal ballots cast at that cleo
ton he is entitled to the Office and its cmolu-
ments. and we do not believe Mr.. Mills viii OPP
pose him.
Ii the popullsts have lost any eve
water we fail TO perceive the cause.
since they elected their officers and the
same have qualified. 1t seen S to US
that the lachrymal leak was sprung III
republican optics and the 0Uzing of
brlny tluld on the subject of Deerhead 5
election has continued to trickle from
the same source. The above essence of
NORWOOD evidences the fact and con
stitutes an illustration. There was no
call for the article and nothing was
done to incite such an ebuIlitlon. The
editor of the Cresset simply Dubbed
over after several weeks agitation. and
having relieved himself of the accumu-
lated excess of spleen he relapses into
his normal condition to await another
attack of his intermittent eruptions.
Being the syphonic aperture of the re-
publican party IN Barber county the in
ternal disturbance in that political or
ganjZation can be correctly OWNED
from the animus of its excresence. And
thus deducing its state, the conclusion
follows that its i'll temper is melted by
disappointment, and that the same
feeling is shared by the party in aggre-
gate. For such there is always due
allowance made by those who can we'll
afford to watch the spewing of vinegar
and gall.
The Cresset's question in regard to
those who failed to mark the ballot as
prescribed by law" is institutlng case
where there is absolutely no parallel
with the case in hand. In such an oc
casion the intent of the voter could NOT
be determined by any means, since he
had not marked his ballot correctly. In
the Deerhead instance the intent of the
voter cannot be mistaken, since the
ballots were all correctly marked the
only unusual feature being the color of
the paper upon which the names were
printed. The intelligent reader can
Immediately see that the Cresset's at
tempt TO bolster its position by imagin-
; airy parallels ends IN miserable fail
uIe.
We have heretofore explained that
| the canvassing board of this county had
no right to go behind the returns and
were bound to issue a certificate of
election TO Mr. Mills. The Cresset adj
mits this now, because It's supreme
: court last winter decided that very
question:; but after thus admitting the
tact what are they going TO do with the
republican member of that board. who
dIssented from so issuing the certif-
, cate? That fact plainly shows that had
they majority of the board they would
have done what they now admit would
be wrong.
In the case Of Wilds VS.. state board
of canvassers the supreme court held
} that
The ballot indicates the viii OF the voter;
and when, IN the light Of az the surrounding
circumstances, the purpose of the voter can be
aseertained with reasonable certainty, effect
should bc given to it 80 Kans., page az.
The Cresset should have leprimanded
the supreme court for saying anything
, about the Twill of the voter IA ali
eases where The intention OF lie eleetoy
can be determined it has been held that
his vote shall be counted. In the Deer
head case the intention was rs clear as
in any other township. a fact which is
not disputed. The judges of election
counted the ballots and made returns.
which proves absolutely that the inten-
ton was ascertaIned beyond question.
So the CreSset's little analogy vaporizes
and passes off as gaseous oxidation.
In support of the ruling above there
are many others te substantiate it,
) showing that technicalities are not to be
considered when the intention Of the
elector can be ascertained. In the case
; of Clark VS. Commissioners of Mont
gomery county the supreme court made
inc foIfnxcin0 ruliu0.