Daily independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 188?-1915, 1898-12-22
THE GUBERNAToKIAL MIDDLE.

"udO Id SOlHR Oc GHc result Vi
Judge Fitzgerald's decision, throw.
ing out I'll votes in precincts in
Eureka county? The District
Judges decision was rendered upon a
case Of precisely the same character
and from the same county, from u do
cision rendered by the Supreme Conrt
two years ago-the case of Sweeney
vs. HUI. In that case, as we under
stand it. the entire vote Of the rejected
precincts was thrown out and not
counted for any OF The candidates, in
elusive or exclusive Of the contestlng
parties. If the Journal understands
it correctly, The vote for Presidential
Electors, CnDgressm man and Justice
OF the Supreme Court went overheard
with the others. but as it ma lie no
change in the result, it attracted Lit
tie or no attention. 1t seems to be a
cues ion Of cold Jaw, and should, as it
doubtless will be, SO treated by the
Supreme Court. With the Journal,
it is n sort Of ~rattlesnake and polecat
contest, 30 far as the result: is con-
cerned, and it a view it from an un-
prejudiced standpoint.
While it seems to US hard that 30
many persons should be disfranchised
because OF some t~echnicalities for
which they, or at least, but few OF
them we're responsible, 1t also seems
but fair that il the votes are thrown
out for one candidate, it should af
feet all alike, from Governor to Con-
stable. for the technical COMMISSIONS
or commissions certainly apply to all.
and il they hold good on the matter Of
the A~ssessorshlp it seems but Just
that it should include the entire bal
lots from top to bottom. If we had
oul way, every honest ballot cast in.
the state should be counted as il
read, and no little lnformality or tech
nicality should prevail against it.
As, however, the elections must be
regulated by law, which prescribes
the manner and details concerning
their oonduct, which should be car
ried out as nearly a possible, but in
all violations Of the law, which affect
the validity OF the vote at any pre-.
cinct, all candidates voted for should
DO treated alike and no distinction
made in the offices Of Governor, Con.
gresham or School Trustee. We
believe that the thrown out precincts
affect no State Office except the Gov.
ernorship. May the one VINO is le-
gslly entitled to it get it.--Reno
Journal.
The Supreme Court in its decision
in the case Of Sweeney VS.. HUI, to
which the Journal refers, said that
the voter in n precinct or township
who voted FOR tho officers of another
precinct or township rendered hia
ballot void. The reason given by the
Court for its decision is that in at.
tempting tc elect officers for whom he
had no right to vote the voter deliber.
ately places upon his ballot a mark
that destroys it's secrecy, and could be
used for the corruption and fraud
that the law intended to prevent.
The ballot being void, a vote fLr
Governor could not be counted n
more than one for Sheriff could be.
Every candidate voted for by the
voter would lose a vote on all such
ballots cast. Under that decision the
Supreme Court, in cGse OF a contest,
would huve to reject all ballots where
in the voter voted for township or
precinct officers other than those in
the township or precinct in which he
lived. II these ballots are rejected
and Sadler can not offset them, his
slender plurality. OF twenty two is
wiped out and Mcmillan will be the
neyt Governnr