The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-07-13
DINED WITH THE BALLOTS
What Invalidated the Vote of
Lake Precinct, Siskiyou
County.
HUNGRY ELECTION OFFICIALS
The Box Was Taken to Dinner.
Points on the Proper Marking
of Ballots.

1t was an interesting decision that the
Supreme Court rendered yesterday in the
case of George a. Tebbs against Clarence
S. Smith, and one in which several ques-
tions created by the new ballot law were
adjudicated. The action came from Siski-
you County. 1t arose from an election for
school superintendent, in which Smith
was elected by one vote.
When the result of the canvass was
known Tebbs Immediately instituted re-
count, and by gaining three votes put HIM
self two in the lead, and he was declared
elected by the court. Smith then appealed,
and the Supreme Court, after throwing out
the vote in two precincts, found thatSmith
was elected and accordingly directed the
court below to reverse its decision.
The Supreme Court, as a premise to its
opinion, stated that, as the ballots them
selves were conclusive evidence, they must
therefore be proved to have been untam-
pered with from the time when they were
voted until introduced as evidence for or
against any claim. 1t was only necessary,
however, for him who appealed to the bal
lots to prove that every statutory require
ment for preserving their integrity had
been complied with and it then rested
that it was possible the ballots might have
been tempered with.
The Lake precinct came under discus
sion in the opinion and as result the votes
cast by the residents were all thrown out.
They conducted most free-and-easy cleo
ton in that Lake precinct of Siskiyou
County. The polls should have opened at
6:31 A. NJ. but it was only just before the
stroke of 10 that the embargo was raised
and the citizens allowed to approach the
polls. For two hours all hands voted as
siduously, but then, becoming hungry, the
election officials decided that dinner was
the next event on the programme, and
they adjourned to attend to that duty.
There was some reticence about leaving
the ballot-box to look after tie polls. so
they included it in their invitation, and it
occupied Il place of honor npon the table
while its guardians refreshed themselves.
In the meantime the blank ballots were
lying upon the table in the polling place.
Dinner being ended the ballot-boX and the
officials returned TO duty.
The Supreme Court took cognizance
merely of the going away, and proceeded
to comment most caustically thereon. The
election officers, the court said, violated
the law which forbids the removal
of the ballot-box from the polls and
the presence of the by-standers. In
doing this the court did not criti-
ciZe the appetites of the election Off
GERS, but it asserted the belief that their
hunger simply cloIded their appreciation
of the RESPONSIBILITIES of their positions.
Such things, in the eyes of the court, could
not be tolerated, however, for the prece-
dent would be a dangerous one, and there
fore the vote of the whole of Lake Precinct
was ruled out.
The vote of Cecilville precinct for some
what different reasons met the same fate.
H. It, -,
gle exception, were marked in the blank
spaces for additional Justices OF the Peace,
g. g. Brown, Republican. The names
were put on in the same handwrit-
ing, and there was a record of but one man
who had to be assisted in marking his
ticket. The evidence in the case did not
show when the ticket was marked with the
name, and the Supreme Court therefore
presumed it was done after the ballot was
given to the voter. In view of this pre-
sumption the court ruled the vote of the
precinct out on account of this distinctive
mark upon the ballots. The exception
proved the rule, for that single vote was
counted.
There were also ballots upon which the
cross had been placed on the dotted line
between the name of the man and the
name of his party, and these were objected
to on the ground that this popularity con-
stituted mark of identification. This
contention is passed aside by the Supreme
Court. 1t was held that the law said
naught of the placing of the cross in the
square allowed for it in the printing of the
ballot, and that when the cross was placed
opposite the name voted all requirements
were complied with. That this method of
marking a ballot might be the means of
Identifying it the Supreme Court did not
deny. but such mark was legal and the
court would not throw out ballot thus
legally marked.
The last ballot under consideration was
one marked with small -" in pencil, in
the spaces under the names for Justices of
the Peace. This was mark of Identified
ton, said The court, and the ballot was
consigned to oblivion.