The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1893-05-24
SET BACK AGAIN.
Democrats Disappointed by the
Supreme Court
CROSSES PUT BELOW
The Name Of the Candidate Will Rem.
der the Ballot Illegal.
Mr.. LANDERS'S TITLE SETTLED.
The Court Decides That the Mark Must
BE Placed On the Ballot Opposite the
Name Of the Candidate and That
When Placed the Vote 10
Not Valid and Cannot. Therefore, he
Counted-Cross Properly Placed Az
fords No Chancc for Identification.

The Democratic glee over the success
OF Col. Honey Of Newport yesterday was
somewhat dampened by IN opinion OF the
Judges Of the supreme court.
This opinion relates to the recently
mooted question as to the validity OF a
ballot which Is marked In the space
below the name, and not in the space
directly opposite the name of the candi-
date.
The Opinion.
The opinion was asked by Governor
Brown, aud is as follows:
PROVIDENCE. May %. 1898.
10 p, H, s,d Ese g RSsal D. r. hs.sea and Ppm P ; sSSsrn Pias q
tations:
We have received a communication from your
Island. Chapter 7si. sections 8 and Is. and asking
our Opinioi on the question whether. in view Of
blank space below the names OF candidates on An
s SnasiaI p for ss aSa esShbdSi SaIs.e 90 oa s ssi ia9 b ,nsse0n ca" o'
We think the question must be answered In the
Section o provides tnat each ballot "snai be so
printed as U give each vster a clear oppor,nnity 70
the right ofths name Of each c%.naida,s his choice
SECTOR shall prepare his ballot 81 marking in the
appropriate margin a cross 9ppos te Ihs name OK
aiied.S This requirement. Is both expiicit and easy
Of observance. n complied with there can be- no
uICti'hihbS ih 'koiN y. ~ Nhb
Moreover, a cross 50 plsced affords no means q
srSs, Sp ne = Sln issns.fy po.i.i / ea from a tsa Il d mrsns IL
The placing z may o, bs sn Id.n marx p q. the set eas on voted Z snil Sy ni ~
Is prohibited by. said section rs.
Ne are still Of the opinion as stated IN re Vote
ballot tn cross must be inscribed ON It to the right
Of a name printed or written ON II and opposite to
Owing TO the absense OF Mr.. Justice Rogers from
the State ~e have been unable TO confer with him.
CHARLES MArrESoN.
Is gned) y. r. TILLNGHAsr,
VIM, W. DOUGLAS
An Untenable Position.
This opinion definitely stamps as I'M
tenable the position taken by the Demo
Gratis that a ballot marked below the
name of the candidate is valid and that
it should be counted for the last candi-
date on the list. The Democrats based
their opinion upon decisions in English
courts, aud also upon a decision OF the
New Hampshire court.
1t will be remembered that when the
committee appointed to count the con-
gressional ballots of the last election,
Senator Comstock was elected chair man.
When the report was made it appeared
that some six or seven of the ballots
mhTktu III tnc SquiTe DelOW Jnat OppO-
site the name of the candidate had been
counted for the last name on tn list.
MIR. Wilson Objected.
Objection was raised in grand commit
tee by Repres ,ntative +. II. Wilson, tha.
ballots were not lega! and that the &C.
ceptance Of the report would form n pre-
cedent lega!izing the counting of such
votes. He offered an amendment which
was adopted, stating that such action of
the counting committee would be &C
copied because 1t did not affect the re-
suit but that In principle 1t was wrong
and should form 10 precedent.
The anxiety OF the Democrats TO estab-
lish this precedent was caused by the last
election in jamestown where Mr.. Ian
ders neld over by virtue Of no election.
Mr.. Smith the Democratic candidate
only lacked of a majority. but there
were z votes marked below the name rs
in the congressio al ballots. II these
ballots are counted Mr.. Smith will be
elected.
The decision. therefore, will deprive
them of all legal right to unseat Mr..
Landers on the ground that Mr.. Smith
was elected by the ballots marked la the
tQuare below his name.