The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1898-09-14

leaVlng only faint remainder oil tne
mark he had made.
Was the board of of civil authority
legally justified in throwing out the
votes cast for Flint in either the first or
second ballot which are reported as
being "double Marked" and therefore
not counted2 Did the double marking
invalidate those votes? In respect of
the marks the voter makes on a ballot
to indicate his choice the law says: "If
for any reason it is impossible to de-
termine the voters choice for an Office
to be filed, his ballot shall not be
counted for such office" Did the
double marking in the four votes cast |
for Mr.. Flint, on the first ballot, render |
it "impossible to determine the voters
choice" for the Office of Representa-
tive? Was not the choice of the four
voters made doubly clear? In the case
of the votes for Mr.. Flint cast in the
second ballot and not counted was
there shadow of doubt as to the
voters choice for Representative?
The pretense of any illegality in the
four votes cast for Mr.. Flint but not
counted in the first ballot, or the three
in the second ballot, is in the highest
degree absurd. Mr.. Flint was legally
elected on the first ballot, and again
on the second ballot. The board of civil
authority seems to have taken its Or
ders, on the first and second ballots, in
respect of the double-marked ballots,
from a Democratic member of the
board. He was the sole law and judge
in the matter. The law of the State
was not referred to in considering the
matter A copy of the Statutes was
not in the place of meeting. The cleo
ton of Mr.. Flint was at first conceded
by the board, and was on the point of
being announced when the figures
were recalled and the legal issue of the
ballot destroyed by throwing out the
"double-marked" votes cast for him.
An opportunity seems to have been
discovered, at the last moment, to de-
feat the election of Mr.. Flint on the
slimsiest kind of technicality. The
/ quirk the democratic Scion had devised
t to defeat choice on the first ballot,
| prevented the announcement of an
t election on the second, also. On the
counting of the third ballot this member
of the board had departed for his home
and his place was taken by another, also
a democrat, who had not previously as
: sisted in the counting. On this third
:, ballot there was, at least, one vote
: "double marked" for j. H. Daniels
: The democratic member now sitting
! with the board insisted that the ruling
8 of his predecessor was all wrong and
9 that this vote should be counted. Sc
q ter of the double-marked votes, which
:. had twice counted out Mr.. Flint
: was now reversed and Mr.. Daniels
was counted in. The democrat sit
ting with the board of civil authority
: on the counting of the third ballo
Q admitted that Mr.. Flint was legally
q elected on the first and second ballots
a but in his judgment the declaration Of
the board of civil authority that an
= other man was elected settles the whole
matter and there is no remedy; that is
that the dictum of the board of civil
authority is superior to the constitu
ton and the laws. A hearing in the
= case will be had on Monday next.
,. 1t is noticeable in this case tina
many ballots for the State and county
officers, cast at Middlesex, were "double
: marked; the cross was placed in the
= square at the head of the ticket, anG
. again in the margin opposite the name
> of each candidate in the column below
: and these votes were counted by thu
. board that refused to count votes, sim
y ilarly marked, cast for the Republican
= candidate for representative. The fore
going are the essential facts in the
Q case, as they have been presented t.
4 the WATCHMAN. Under this showing
Mr.. Flint is clearly entitled to represen
the town of Middlesex in the Legisla
ture recently chosen.