The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-08-20
MOVERS NEW EFFORT
He Petitions the Supreme
Court for Rehearing.
SOME INTERESTING POINTS.
Decisions From other Supreme Courts
Careful Review of Authorities
In support Of His Case.

pettfion for rehearing has been fled
with the supreme court on behalf or Will
lam IT. Meyer in his contest against Aaron
T. Van de vanter for the shrievalty. The
former attorneys are row supplemented
by Donworth & Howe, and the petition
has some exceedingly interesting features
The main features of the petition may be
thus summarized
This court in Its opinion referring to
Franklin precinct states that the failure
TO comply with the law appears TO nave
been due 20 ignorance OF It's PROVISIONS on
the part of the election officers"
We respectfully submit that no such In
ference can be drawn from the findings OF
fact in this action, this court having re-
fused TO go behind the findings OF fact on
account OF the insufficiency OF the excep-
tons thereto: in other words, there was
no evidence before the court TO warrant
such conclusion. No presumption should
be INDUCED in by this court in the absence
OF evidence.
An examination Of the seventh finding
OF fact relating to Franklin precinct viii
demonstrate a noticeable omission Of such
finding. The tenth. eleventh and twelfth
findings Of fact relating 20 other precincts
where there was q failure TO indorse the
initials of the election officers contained
findings in substance that there was no
proof whatever OF any actual fraud being
perpetrated at said precincts or that there
IT was for this reason that we desired 10
get before this court the original findings
OF the trial court in regard TO Franklin
precinct. IL seemed TO us that justice de-
manded IL. The silence of the seventh
finding as to Franklin precinct as to want
OF fraud is in marked contrast with the
tenth, eleventh and twelfth findings OF
fact.
The most important question arises upon
the construction given by this court 10
section 29l. First Hills code. as being in
conflict with the right of suffrage graran-
teed by the constitution of this state.
We confess ourselves surprised that the
case should be decided upon point not
| raised by the respondent in his brief The
constitutional question is not limited at.
Their third point, commencing at page 81
OF respondents brief. is where respondent
discusses the effect of the want of initials,
and his whole contention is that section
29i should be construed TO be directory.
Our statute provides Claws OF 1893. page
f2T, section 49, that within thirty days
after service of the appellants brief the
| respondent shall likewise serve and file
with the clerk OF the superior court his
briefs; and that either party may. after
the fling Of his brief. and not less than
one day prior TO the'learing of the appeal,
submit TO the supreme court and the ad-
verse party a written or printed statement
OF additional authorities. with suitable
comment thereon, stllCtlF IN support or
the position taken in his brief. All of which
was done in this case without an intima-
ton upon the part of the respondent that
the constitutional question would be
raised. In such case the petition for re-
hearing Is granted as a matter of course.
The appellant is certainly entitled TO be
heard upon the constitutionality of section
sal of our election laws: and is entitled to
a rehearing for this reason IL for no other.
We further submit to this court that its
decision holding section 391. First HIS
code. In conflict with the constitution Of
this state in effect wipes out the POSSIBLE
ity OF enforcing the Australian ballot sys-
tenn I'm the state OF Washington, and Is in
conflict with the construction given TO ike
statutes under like constitutional provi-
sions by the court of last resort in every
state In this Union which had handed
down an opinion that had been reported
upon the question down 10 the time Of the
decision herein. among which are the fol-
! lowing. directly TO the point. that a ballot
not legally Endorsed shall not be received
or counted: People IS. commissioners
Ouondaga county, 10 y, Y. 652. People
vs.. Person. 70 y. Y, supplement S02: az
firned lS5 y. Y. SIS. State vs. Cav en- \
W. s77 (Minn.i. State VS.. Russell. 81 Neb..
lib. State VS.. Stein, 81 Neh. SIS. and Par
win VS. Winberg. 80 Ind. SCI: 80 " T.. 793
Under constitutional provisions precisely
similar to our own as to the right to vote
we SIputI not nave assumed 10 nave
presented this petition for reheariug not
outstanding we had no opportunity 10
he heard upon the constitutional question
upon which this court has decided this
case. were Il not for the fact that about
the time this court handed down its opin-
ion IN this case. the supreme court OF Cal
Eornla, without dissent, in the case OF
Tebhe vs.. Smith, not yet reported. hand
ed down an opinion upon the same point
raised by us in regard 20 the FRANKLIN
precinct except that there was no pre-
tense or claim Of fraudulent conduct up
on the part Of the election officers in that
ease. directly in conflict with the decision
OF this court in this case. II SAYS:
1t Is the duty OF the courts so far
to adhere 20 the substantial requirements
/ Of tde law IN regard 70 elections as %
preserve them from abuses subversive Of
the rights OF the electors. and under this
view the question becomes a broader
one than can be disposed OF by answering
that IN tho Individual case no harm re-
suited Thus in Knowles vs. Yeates q
Cal. s.. the contention Of appellants was
that admitting thar there was no fraud
md that the votes were east by qualified
electors. still the fact that IN certain pre-
cincts the polls were opened. without rea-
son. at long distances from the appointed
places. was enough in itself 20 cali for
the rejection Of the votes, and this court
50 held. Likewise ia the case of People
vs. Scale. - TAI, Il. - nero no question
or fraud or injury was involved but
where AZ an election. called for voting a
school tax. the polls were opened IT
O'Clock p. m. and closed at 6 instead az
being opened AZ one hour after sunrise.
and kept open until sunset. as the law
+ then required. this court without hesi-
tat.on declared the election invalid
In this case we ara quite willing 20 be-
ieve that the misconduct 81 the officers
~ lake precinct were prompted bv
nothing worse than ignorance ard lack
% the appreciation - the responsf Utilities
OF their positions. and We may say FUR
ther for such s. the evidence. that TO
harm IS shown 70 have resulted from
their conduct. but looking u the purity
of elections ana integrity Of the ballot
box We are constrained 20 hoi5 that con
duct Ike this amounts in Itself 20 such a
failure to observe the substantial REQUIRE
rneuts 81 the law IS must invalifste the
election Ard while reluctant SO n hold
in tafs instance We are confirmed In the
opinion BY coneizera ton Of the fact that
any other Interpretation would adj grave
pers1s "a tre safe conduct % our cleo
tians. which are already ha~asse1 by
( dangers enough"
This decision % the s.srrerre eaurt %
California. also being under a canStIfts-
tioasl provision in rrEaTd 70 suffrage
equally imperative with orr own--art -
II section J. O. the constitution o. CALI
f0r0fa and which constitution contains
no provision like our own for the uro-
.e-tion q tee secrecr NJ the ballot
should have great weight wien This court
in granting n@w hearing IN this case m