Pawtucket tribune. (Pawtucket, R.I.) 1890-189?, 1893-04-24
SECOND WARD CASES
Heard in The District
Court Today.
DECISION IS WITHHELD.
Judge Shove Hears the Arguments Of
Both Sides.


District Court the cases OF John p. Smith
and James p. McVay, charged with viola
ting the provisions OF the Ballot Reform
law at the election held In the Second
Ward, April s, came up for argument on
the motion OF Attorney Osfield, for the
defence, to quash.
Last Monday when the defendants were
arraigned Mr.. Osteld gave notice of his
intention to file such a motion.
Both Mr.. Smith and Mr.. McVay were
on hand with their council, and Thomas
w. Robinson and Ii. j. Carroll appeared
for the prosecution.
The case OF John p. Smith was first
taken up.
Mr.. Osfield said the complaint was not
admissab BILE as 1t stated that John p.
Smith gave to one Lawrence Graham a
printed slip OF paper on which were GER
tain candidates. names with instructions
to mark his ballot for these candidates,
but 1t did not state where this was done.
1t might have been on the "Plains" as
well as the Second Ward. The law, he
said, applies only to the enclosed space
and the acts did inside the rail are the
only ones In violation of the Ballot Re
form law.
The warrant read that Smith, by giving
the slips To voters, caused the voters to
show how they were going to mark their
ballots In viola ion OF the intent OF the
law.
Mr.. Osfield said there was nothing to
show anything OF the kind.
In East Providence both parties have
printed slips and distributed them out
side the rail. There was no harm for a
son TO write on slip OF paper the names
OF the candidates which his aged father
wished to vote for.
"Anoth her count, said he, ais that he
(Smith) conspircd to defeat the public
laws Of the State" That Is sweeping
charge and not definite enough.
What he did exactly should be specified.
In the State of Massac husetts they have
perforated ballots the same size OF the
official ballot which they distributed.
They are lald over he official ballot and
the voter marks in the perforated places.
roere Is no harm in It.
Mr.. Robinson said the complaint and
warrant we're all right. Mr.. Osfeld's OBJ
lection to the way 1t read, "Laborer John
p. Smith," made no difference.
II IL read, "John =. Smith, laborer," II
would he just the same. That WORD
"laborer" made no diff renee.
Secondly, IT is claimed that this war
rant does not show tDat there was con-
spiracy to commit crime.
Ii ever a warrant did, this does. IL
reads: "Jobn p. Smith, In connection
with Others unknown to the complainant,
did willfuiiy," etc. 1t states explicitly
hat he "willfuily" coDspired 10 defeat
the law.
Smit b stood outside the rail. He would
give a slip to voter That voter would
70 to the " arden with the slip In one
hand and ballot In the other and tell
the Warden that he did not know how to
mark his ballot. He would be sent to a
Republican supervisor who would mark
his ballot for him, the voter during all
this time being IN full view OF the man,
Smith outside the rail. Thus he showed
Smith by showing the Flip to the Warden
and handing 1t to the supervisor how he
voted. Ii does not matter whether Re-
publican or Democratic supervisor
marked the ballot, 1t was violation OF
the law To carry that slip around.
Mr.. Osfield says 1t does not state In
what ward In was. In the first part OF { he
warrant 1t says "Second Ward"
In this part II Ieaus: "In said ward"
That does not mean the third, fourth or
fifth. II In plain enough.
II does not matter whether thpassed
those slips around inside the enclosed
space or not. II he passed them around
on the sidewalk or anywhere else, and the
voter by using the slip showed how he
voted, it was conspiracy and violation
of the law.
II man has intelligence enough to tell
the Warden that he did not know how to
mark his ballot he ought to know enough
to say al want 1t marked for the Repub-
lican or Democratic candidates and not
need a slip.
In having the slip a conspiracy Is
shown. The slip was used TO show the
Warden and others inside and outside the
rail how he voted.
The Court wanted to know
~ a man violated the law
II he stated loudly how he wanted his bal
lot marked.
Mr.. Robinson said he did not, II there
was no conspiracy.
Mr.. Osfield said that the voter Is the one
who violated the law and not the man
who gave him the slip.
The case was held by the court aud the
first count against James p. McVay was
taken up.
IL was charged that McVay, as Warden
OF the Second Ward at the election on
April did allow Joseph l.. Mcvsy
and William A. Hayes to go within the
enclosed space after they had voted and
their names checked, they not being
election officers, In violation of section
721 OF he Ballot Reform law.
Mr.. Osfield said the warrant was not
made out properly ss II read, Hugh j.
Carroll, Chief IL Police" and was signed
that way. Mr.. Carroll has held many
Offices, but never knew him 10 be Chief
of Police" said Mr. Osfisld.