The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1894-10-17
an uuconstitntikhafrr

an uuconstitutitaai provision. The
its application t2k 6icket offered by
him. Nhe3 efendant,s de-
murrer was properly everruled, and the
order overruling the same isaccording-
ly affirmed" a.
This decision was made subsequent
~ to the electioBin)ieontroversy, but
IS 1t not retroacHve:ip its effect upon
this case? ~ 81
It declares that the word "ballotp
| means secrecy apn absence CT every
external mark WheEeby the elector
who has cast the,SaMe can be identi-
fed. A ticket Identified by placing
the voters name, or a number indica-
tive Of his name upon it, is not ssbal-
lott in the sense Of the constitution;
and has, therefore, mo right to be
placed in the ballot-box. When the
| court decided that such identified
tickets were not "ballots" it certainly
follows that they are not entitled to
be counted as 'ballots."
Briefly stated the argument may be
thus summed up: 49,
!. Members of congress can only be
elected in the state of Minnesota by
ballots"
p. A numbered ticket is not ',bal-
lot"
3. Such numbered tickets, there
fore can not be counted.
They are simLly attempts to vote.
but are by election officers deprived Of
that constitutional element of secrecy
which is necessary to enable them to
be counted as "ballots''
But it is not necessary to rest the
decision of this case alone upon this
ground; the conclusion we have reached
is based on broader foundations,
which reach the bona fdes of the cleo
ton in the precincts where those bal
lots were numbered. Not only we're
the numbered votes cast in these pre-
cincts unconstitutional and void, but
they were SO numbered for a corrupt
and dishonest purpose, and were in
compatible with an honest, fair and
free election.
All lawyers will concur that the de-
cision of the district court was highly
persuasive of, if not sufficient to con-
troll, the Judgment of election officers
in their action touching the validity
of the statute in question. And we
accordingly find (see Daily Globe Nov.
5, 1878, report of proceedings, offered
in evidence) that in the city of ST.
Paul the judges Of election met the
day before election, took counsel with
the law officer of the city, and decided
not to number the ballots. They took
this course under the advice Of the at
torney- general of the state, (as appears
by said paper, of the county attorney
of Ramsey county, of the city attorney
of st. Paul. and even Of the counsel
who had defeated the law before the
district court. These parties the at
tOrneyS for the city and county, and
the attorney defending the act, united
in card to the public. advising cleo
tion officers not to number the ballots
(See st. Paul Pioneer Press Oct p,
1879
A similar meeting of the judges of
election was held the day before the
election in the city of Minneapolis,
(see p. 134.) They called upon the city
attorney for his opinion on the ques-
tion OF numbering the ballots. He
told them that the, district court Of
Ramsey county had decided that the
law was unconstitutional; and that it
was his opinion, Also SHAT such num-
berlng destroyed the secrecy of the bal
lot and was unconstitutional. "They
finally took a voteEas to how they
would conduct the election in that
particular" and Asdecided in favor of
disregarding the law; and that they
would not number the ballots. The
vote stood Is Or 10 against or 10, Go.
l40. =
1t was thus resolved in both the
cities to which the law applied that
the ballots should not be numbered.
This was considered triumph for the
supporters of Mr.. Donnelly, and ac-
cordingly the st. Paul Daily Globe, the
Democratic paper of that city, which
was supporting Mr.. Donnelly, an
nounced this action in its issue of the
next morning, which was the morning
Of election, in these words: