St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-09-15
JUDGE WILLIS.
John H. Ives vigorously Defends
Him.

To the Editor of the Globe.
In view of the fact that the implacable
hostility of the Pioneer Press to Judge
Willis may not be known TO all the reaG-
ers OF the Press. it impressss me as
being duty to make a correct state
ment of the Pennington-Hare contest
case commented upon IN an editorial of
that paper in this mornings issue, lest
injustice be done.
To get fair appreciation of this case
1t is well to first understand that MIR.
Hare had been declared elected to the
office of alderman by three plurality. 1t
is we'll next to understand that this re-
suit was not declared by any Democratic
election boards: but the result was
declared by election judges appointed by
Republican council where in many III
stances Republicans were commissioned
to do duty in the guise of Populist
Judges. In view of the strict, narrow
and unyielding partisan spirit evinced
by the Republicans in this city in the
last few months it ought to be pretty
easy to guess whether Democrat would
get much advantage on a canvass of the
returns.
Judge Willis. however. declared Mr.
Hare elected upon these same ballots by
plurality of one only, and in SD doing
excluded two votes which l then
claimed and still claim should have
been counted for Mr.. Hare, and had
they been so counted Mr.. Hare
would have received upon the face of
the returns the same plurality the
judges OF election gave him.
IL was unnecessary for Judge Willis
to decide upon the ballots upon which
the voters had writt-n their names or
the Italian votes ref Used. rs thess de-
cisions were in favor of MIR. Hare and
MIR. Hare had already been decided
ecte by recount of the bal'
lots. An issue had been raised
upon these questions, however, and
my Supposition is that Judge Willis
supposed that it would be the proper
thing to meet the issue rather than
evade 1t.
Mr.. Wheelocb, speaking of the action
of the Judge in excluding three ballots
for Pennington and one for Hare upon
which the voters had written their
names. upon the ground that the voter
had dlvulged his ballot Ga position
which the editor seems to cuncede).
says:
This is probably the first time the
doctrine was ever laid down in this
free country that voter could not tell
for whom he voted If he chose to do SO.
The law gives him the right of secrecy
in voting if lie chooses to avail himself
of its safeguards. But there is no law
which prevents him from voluntarily
telling for whom he voted"
MIR. Wheelock has evidently never
read section los of chapter of the Laws
nf
reads as follows:
See. l05. No voter shall divulge to
any one within the polling place tine
name of any candidate for whom he in
tends to vote or has voted. Nor shall
he asked for Or receive the assistance
of any person within the polling place
i'll the preparation of his ballot, except
as provided for persons under physical
disability, are who are unable to read
the English language.
''lf any elect0r, alter having marked
his ballot. shows it to any one. except
as herein provided. the judges of cleo
ton shall refuse to receive or place in
the ballot box such ballots; aud if such
showing was clearly intentional no
other ballot shall be delivered to such
electOr." With reference to the twelve
Italian voters whose votes Judge Willis
decided ought to be counted, one would
think to read the article that these men
never went near the polls and were in
capable of having an intention to vote.
The fact is the evidence showed that
theSp men (whO are conceded to have
been legal voterS) went three times that
day to the polls 10 vote, and were each
time denied the right TO vote. If there
Is any doubt in the mind of Mr.. Vince.
lock as to how these men intended to
vote there does not appear to have been
any doubt on the part OF the adherents
of the different parties on that day, for
the evidence shows that all the Repub.
lican challengeIs and partisans were
attempting to prevent them from voting
on that day, and all the Democratic
adherents were attempting to have
their right to vote respected, and in the
afternoon there was a wordy battle
lasting about two hours at the polls
between legal advisers of both parties.
The evidence also shows that in the
morning when the first two of the
twelve went up to vote, some partisan
lin violation of law asked one OF them
how he Intended 20 vote, and he said
straight Democrat" and then COM
menced the opposition to their-voting,
which continued the whole day. The
counsel for the contestant also pressed
one of the first witnesses for his reason
for wanting to vote the Democratic
ticket, and the witness stated
that when the Democrats were in power
they had got work here ana had had
none since the Republicans came in
power, and they thought it was for their
interest to vote the Democratic ticket.
and the answer seemed so reasonable
that that line of inquiry was never
further pursued.
The fact is that the intention of these
men to vote the Democratic ticket was
as clear as it is possible to prove the in-
tentlOn of i!llterate men who are not well
Informed on current events and are UNI
acquainted with the names of party can
didates. You cannot deny the right of
any man to vote because he is not per-
sonallY acquainted with any of the can
didates or does not even know their
names. You could not deny the right
OF an educated man TO vote for
that reason aud the constitution makes
no distinction in the degree of inteli-
gence or education of a voter. So long
as our constitution exists in its present
form it is not only the right but a sacred
duty OF every court to see that this
right is guaranteed and preserved to the
most lowly and uneducated. The time
has never yet arrived when any great
upon the proposition that mans right
to vote must depend upon the degree of
his intelligence anu education, and
while that constitution stands as it is,
the right to vote of an unedu-
Gated. illiterate and unread man
is just as sacred under the sun of free
government as the right Of the scholar
OF philosopher.
Mr.. Wheelock also says that there is
no legal authority for counting votes
not actually cast. Without firing Mr..
Wheelock with citation L would refer
him to section 52S, of Crary Oh Elections,
wherein the author says:
I'm order that vote not cast shall be
counted as il cast. it must appear that a
legal voter offered to vote a particular
ballot, and that he was prevented from
doing so by fraud, violence or an erro-
neOuS ruling Of the election officers, "and
also Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law, p.
433. to same affect.