The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-04-08
II Was On Those That Had
Been Crossed Twice.
Mr.. Vincent Argued for Rejection.
Mr.. Comstock Against.
City Solicitors Opinion Was That Ballot
Should Be Counted.

The expected wrangle relative To ballots
occurred this forenoon in the Board of
Aldermen and the outcome of it was that
ballots upon which the name of the same
man appears twice, ms the candidate of
two parties shall be counted as one vote.
and not thrown out as defective even IL
the voter has placed his cross opposite the
name in both places. This decision of
the Board was in accordance with the
ruling of the city solicitor.
Inc question was raised early in the
count by ALDERMAN McGann who found n
ballot upon which the name Of II. III. I.
1oduard occurred twice, once as a Demo-
crat and once as Good Governments
candidate. IL was marked with the cross
in both places and the alderman from the
Tenth ward asked for instructions.
Attorney Walter IL. Vincent was present
as counsel for the Republican city COM
mittee and asked that the ballots marked
as the one upon which Colonel McGann
had raised his question be thrown out IA
detective. He argued that within the
meaning of the law the second cross was
unnecessary To indicate the choice Of the
voter, but was a distinguishing mark.
lie also claimed that the Board Of Alder
men could not legally consider X. H. L.
Goddard. Democrat, and II. H. l. Goddard.
person.
Attorney Richard b. Comstock appeared
rs representative of the Democratic city
committee and claimed that the double
cross ballots should be counted. He con-
tended that the intent of the voter is plain
IN the ease Only ono man is voted for
and only one Office and the fact that two
party names appear does not add any
doubt TO the question. He cited tho
Massachusetts case of George Fred Will
llams whose name appeared four times
on each official ballot as candidate for
governor. This was decided by the attor-
ncy general who said that the ballot upon
which two, three or four crosses had
been placed opposite the name of Williams
was Just as good as the one upon which
IL was only marked once.
Mr.. Comstock also made the point that
the names of the candidate and the
addresses were identical In both places
City Solicitor Colwell was called upon
by the Board for an opinion and he ruled
in favor of counting the ballots under
discussion as one vote each.
llo criticised the method Of preparing
the ballot which he said had been adopted
merely for determining the percentage of
the votes cast by different parties for tho
same individual to be used for reference
in subsequent elections But the method
of preparing the ballot was not "a question,
he said, for the Board to consider
no auNlseu lne lncinDefS 10 count tho
ballot for the question involved is one of
fact ana Identification. Tho Board, he
said might reasonably assume that tho
identical names were for the same person
and that it had been the intent of the
voter TO vote for that one person. As To
the distinguishing mark the Supreme
Court has decided that "a distinguishing
mark is something besides cross
Upon motion of the alderman from the
Second ward the Board then resolved to
count according to the opinion of the city
solicitor.