Weekly independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 1887-1914, 1898-12-23
ruE crnEnSAronIAL MuppLE.

| 'noS SOLnk No uc TIE EcSuit Ni
Judge FitIcerald's decision, throw.
ing out III votes in precincts in
Eureka county: The DStric;
Judges decision wss rendered Upon
ase o. precisely the same character
and from the same county. from a de
crSion rendered by the Supreme Cour;
two years aEo-ths case q! Sweeney
rs. HUI. In that case, rs We under.
stand II. the entire vote ~ u.e rejected
precincts WIS thrown out and not
noInted Tor any 81 :he candidates. IN.
elusive or exclusive OF the contestIng
parties. II the Journal understands
It correctly. The vote Tor Presidential
Electors, Congressman aud Justice
II the Supreme Court vent overheard
with the Others. but a. il ma lie 10
change in the result, It attracted Lit
tie or no attention. II seems to be d
question Of cold Law. and should. as it
doubtless will be. 50 treated by the
Supreme Court. With the Journal.
it Is a sort OF rattlesnaSe and p~oiecat
contest. so Tar as the result: is con-
cerned, and it can view it from an I'M
preiudiccd standpoint.
! While il seems to US hard that So
many persons should be disfrauchised
because OF some technicalities for
which they, or at least, but few OF
them were responsible, It also seems
but fair that il the votes are thrown
out Tor one candidate. it should az
feet all alike, from Governor TO Con.
stable. for the technical COMMISSIONS
or commissions certainly apply to all.
and II they hold good on the matter OF
lie AssessOrshIp ii seems but just
flat it should include the entire bal.
lots from top 10 bottom. IL we had
our way, every honest ballot cast i'll
the state should be counted rs it
read, and no little mformality or tech
nicality should prevail against it.
As. however, the elections must be
regulated by law. which prescribes
the manner and details concerning
their cOuduct, which should be car
ried ont as nearly as possible, but in
all violations Of the law. which affect
the validity OF the vote at any pre-
cinct, all candidates voted for should
be treated alike and no distinction
made in the Offices nf Governor. Con-
gresham or School Trustee. We
believe that the thrown out precincts
affect no State ofllse except the Gov
ernorship. May the one II is le-
gally entitled tn it get it.-Reno
journal.
The Supreme Cont in its decision
IN the case OF Sweeney vs.. HUI, to
which the journal refers, said that
The voter in one precinct or township
who voted for the officers Of another
precinct or township rendered his
ballot void. The reason given by the
for it, decision is that in at.
tempting t. elect officers for whom he
had no right to vote the voter Ieliber-
places upon his ballot d mark
that destroys its secrecy, and could be
used for the corruption and fraud
the law intended to prevent.
The ballot being void, a vote Ter
Governor could not be coun,ed any
more than II for Sheriff could he.
candidate voted for by the
voter would lose Il vote on all such
ballots cast. Under that decision the
Supreme Court, in case Of Il contest, !
would lave to reject all ballots where.
III the voter voted for township or
officers other than those in
the township or precinct i'll which he
II these ballots are rejected
and Sadler can not offset them, his
slender plur iity Of twenty two is
wiped ont and Mcmillan will be the
next Governor.