The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1894-02-09
HOW TO VOTE RIGHT.
A letter from Secretary Fessenden Con-
corning the Election Law.

| Secretary of State Fessenden has writ
ten letter regarding recent decision OF
the Supreme court. in the case OF Wm.f :.
Curran VS.. VIM. z. clayton. Clayton had
been declared elected an alderman in
Bangor, the election being held under
the Australian ballot law at time prior
to the amendments passed by the last
legislature. Certain ballots not marked
in accordance with the law were counted
for Clayton, it being argued that the in
tent of the voters was sufficiently In
dictated even if not in strict conformity
to the statute. Curran appealed to the
courts. Mr.. Fessenden, concerning the
decision, says:
The court held these ballots detective
and that Curran and not Clayton was
legally Notwithstanding that whatever
weight this argument may have been en-
titled to, or may have received under the
system which formerly prevailed In the
conduct of elections, it must be remem
bered that the act of 1891. now under
consideration, was designed to lnaugu-
rate an important departure from the
mode of voting which, had existed i'll
this state prior to its passage. 1t is
recognized and familiar principle that
the elective franchise, though guaran-
teed by the Constitution as sacred
privilege to the persons there named as
electors, must still be exercised under
such regulations and restrictions as the
legislature may deem reasonably
necessary to maintain order. preserve the
purity of the election" etc. setc.
Continuing, the Court say concerning
the act of 1891, Its distinguishing
~, f,,J ici1
secret ballot. 1t was designed to secure
complete and inviolate secrecy. and I'M
der established rules should be examined
with reference to the mischief to be re-
medied, and the object to be accom-
plished, and interpreted, IT practicable,
SO as to promote and not destroy the pur-
pose of is enactment
The Court further say with respect to
these ballots, +" it will be seen that the
x mark was placed not in the appropri-
ate blank space as required by the act of
1891, while on one of the ballots a short
straight line was used to mark the ballot
instead of an x. If it be conceded that
the intention of the. voter may be correct
~ inferred from the mark actually made
by him in each of these instances, it is
still fatal objection to the ballot that
such an irregular and unauthorized
mode of marking 1t might readily be,
and probably would be, agreed upon with
the voter as a distinguishing mark to
identify the ballot cast by him whenever
Identification as desired. Such a pal
pable disregard of the plain requirements
of the act strikes at the root OF the secret
ballot system" etc.
The act of 1913 provides square over
the party name, the voter to designate by
an x therein his choice of candidates,
preserving the characteristic of secrecy.
Applying the decision, of the Court to
this law as it now is. it.seems to estab-
lish beyond any question, three propo-
sitions:
First-The ballot must be marked by
an Y.
Second-The cross must be within the
square.
Third-Whether or not a ballot is
countable must be aseertained from the
ballot, and must depend upon the COR
rectness and regularity of the marks
thereon. Correcting boards cannot go
beyond the. ballot or beyond the marks
themselves.
The Court, in this same case. quoting
an Indiana case, say. If he (the yoter)
does not choose to Indicate his choice in
the manner prescribed by law. he cannot
complain if the ballot is not counted"