The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1894-09-19
JUDGE WILLIS.
John ii. Ives Vigorously Defends
Him.
To the Editor of the Globe

| To the Editor of the Globe.
In view of the fact that the I'M
plicable hostility of the Pioneer Press
to Judge Willis may not be known to
all the readers of the Press, it i'm
correct statement 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 it is well to first understand that
Mr.. Hare had been declared elected to
the Office of alderman by three plural
ity. 1t is well next to understand
that this result was not declared by
any Democratic election boards: but
the result was declared by election
judges appointed by Republican
council where in many ms tances Re
| pulicanS were commissioned to duty
in the guise of Populi>t Judges. In
view Of the strict, narrow and unyield-
ing partisan spirit evinced by the Re
publicans in this city in the last few
months it ought to be pretty easy to
! guess whether Democrat would get
much advantage on canvass of the
returns.
Judge Willis, however, declared Mr..
Hare elected upon those same ballots
| by a plurality of one only and in so do
| ing excluded two votes which [ 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 re-
turns the same plurality the judges Of
election gave him.
! 1t was unnecessary for Judge Willis
to decide upon the ballots upon which
the voters had written their names or
the Italian votes refused, as these de-
cisiOns were in favor of Mr.. Hare and
Mr.. Hare had already been decided
elected by recount of the ballots
An issue had been raised upon these
| questions, however, and my SUPPOSE
ton is that Judge Willis supposed
that it would be the proper thing to
meet the issue rather than evade it.
Mr.. Wheelock, speaking of the &C
| tion of the Judge in excluding three
| ballots for Pennington and one for
Hare upon which the voters had writ
ten their names, upon the ground
that the voter had divulged his ballot
"a position which the editor seems to
concede), says:
\ Iio 10 PioD UiO uIoU UllllC UllC
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 he chooses to avail
| himself of its safeguards, but there
is no law which prevents him from
voluntarily telling for whom he
voted"
Mr.. Wheelock has evidently never
read section los of chapter 4 of the
Laws of 1893 (our present election law,
which reads as follows:
''Sec. 105. No voter shall divulge to
any one within the polling place the
name of any candidate for whom he
intends to vote or has voted Nor
shall he ask for or receive the assist
ance of any person within the polling
place in the preparation of his ballot,
except as provided for persons under
physical disability. are who are unable
to read the English language.
IF any elector, after having mark
ed his ballot, shows it to any one, ex-
ccpt as herein provided. the judges of
election shall refuse to receive or
place in the ballot box such showing
was clearly intentional no other ballot
shall be delivered to such elector."
With references to the twelve italian
voters whose votes Judge Willis de-
cided ought to be counted, one would
think to read the article that these
men never went near the polls and
were incapable of having an Intention
to vote. The fact is the evidence
showed that these men (who are con-
coded to have been legal voters went
three times that day to the polls to
vote, and were each time denied the
right to vote. If there is any doubt
in the mind of Mr. Wheelock as to
show how these men intended to vote
there does not appear to have been
any doubt on the part Of the adher-
ents OF the different parties on that
day, for the evidence shows that all
the Republican challengers and parti-
sans were attempting to prevent
them from voting on that day, and all
the Democratic adherents were at
tempting to have their rights to vote
respected and in the afternoon there
was wordy battle lasting about two
hours at the polls between legal ad
visers of both parties. The evidence
also shows that in the morning when
the first two Of the twelve went up to
vote, some partisan Gin violation of
law asked one Of them how he intend
eel to vote, and he said "Straight
Democrat" and then commenced the
opposition to their voting, which con-
tinued the whole day. The counsel
for the contestant also pressed one of
the first witnesses for his reason for
wanting to vote the Democratic tick
ct, and the witness stated that one of
his reasons was that when the Demo-
Gratis were in power they had got work
here and had had none since the Re-
publicans 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 intention of illiterate men
who are not we'll informed on current
events and are unacquainted with the
names of party candidates. You can
not deny the right of any man to vote
because he is not personally acquant-
ed with any of the candidates or does
not even know their names. You
could not deny the right of an edu-
Gated man to vote for that reason and
the constitution makes no distinction
in the degree of intelligence or cduca-