The L'Anse sentinel. (L'Anse, L.S., Mich.) 18??-current, 1894-11-17
INTERVIEW WITH ATTORNEY
GENERAL ELLIS ON THE
SUBJECT.
HE THINKS THAT THE RECENT
DECISION is MISIN-
TERPRETED.
HIS VIEWS ON DISTINGUISH
ING MARKS" ON
BALLOTS.
SOME LIGHT ON THE ALL
Absorbing QUESTION AMONG
POLITICIANS.

The following is taken from the De-
troit Free Press:
The sweeping decision of the supreme
court relative to the marking OF cleo
ton ballots has caused no little sensation
in political circles since the opinion was
filed on Wednesday, and there has been
no little speculation .as to the scope Of
It's provisions.
Attorne! General Ellis has received
from Roscommon county ia ballot upon
which the name OF candidate had been
erased aid cross placed opposite the
name of candidate on another ticket.
Thousands of such ballots we're voted in
Michigan Tuesday and IL is generally
believed that under the de3ision Of the
court such a ballot would be held illegal.
The attorney general, however. said
that he did not believe the court intend
ed Ia hold that the striking off of II
name on Il party's own ticket aud after
wards markiug the name OF an opposing
can1 date on another ticket, would b.
considered IA distinguishing mark. ''ln
the first place. he said, 1.-The only way Il
person could express his Intention when
he desired to reject a party on his own
ticket would be to strike that name of
from that ticke ct; that Is TO say. suppos-
ing place cross at the
head Of the Democratic ticket, and run
down the ticket and find the name Of
some person for whom 1 do not desire
TO vote. then strike the lame or from
my ticket. If l make no further mark
on the ticket that would be Il Democratic
vote for every man on the ticket except
the man whom l strucK of. Now TO
stop right there, it would not be said
that had made any distinguishing mark
on my ballot. Now, supposing l want
To vote for some other candidate oppo-
site the nam, stricken Oft. aud l put u
cross before that name. In the first
place, one would see that the striking off
OF the name on the Democratic ticket
would not be a Distinguishing mark. and
would be perfectly legal and putting n
cross before the other m"n's name would
also be perfectly legal. Now, how can IL
be said that by doing two legal things,
which had perfect right u do, dis
frunchised myself, and the ballot Is To
be I, jected? do not think the court
meant to be understood in that way. In
fact. that question wds not before the
court. and whatever they may have
said Sabout II would be u mere dictum
The case from Bay City was commenced
under the law OF 1891, and that law ex-
presslv provided that the name should
amended the law by simply saying that
IT. should not be necessary TO strike of
the name on the party ticket That
language could not he Interpreted TO
mean that IL would be illegal to strike IT.
of, but simply that it would be just
what IL say, unnecessary, and that n
mans vote would count just the same II
IL was not stricken off Possibly the
court may hold that the striking on Of
the name on the party ticket, and voting
for III. opposite candidate bv putting IL
cross before his name Is n distinguishing
mark. but DO not believe II will. do
not now so understand the decision, and
1 believe the court would be surprised
that any body SO intcrprets It,"
A Lansing dispatch dated Tuesday,
says:
The supreme court today granted
rehearing in the ballot marking ease
of Scott VS.. CHASER and filed an opinion
in which il SAYS: ballots having u
name erased under the party ticket
aud the name of an opposing candi-
date marked by cross should be count
cd. The erasure of the name is recog-
nized us appropriate to express the
voters intent not to vote for such can
didate and we do not think that when
such an erasure is made ON the party
ticket and the voter in addition places
cross before the name of the oppos-
ing candidate either mark should con-
stitutc distinguishing mark. Taken
as a whole we think it was intended
by the act of 1893 that such an erasure
should be treated as permissible
though not necessary"
L'Ansc sak -.