The Portland daily press., 1899-01-13

Csnsi.sed frens First Page.
he would not fall Unto srror. Now the
matter came before the legislature and 10
Was for the House 10 determine whether
the result should be the Interpretation OF
this law In accordance with all the tech.
nicalities with which 1t was hedged about
or on the broad ground of desire, under
the constitutional right Of the House, TO
carry out the will Of the people. Had the
ballots been differently counted and q
majority shown for Mr.. Keefe, then Mr..
Staples might have been the contestant
The same ballots would have been here In
that case and there would have been the
same question on the conscicnces of the
committee, who did the people of that
class want to represent thems Mr.. Heath
then described at length his analysis Of
the vote claiming that the purpose Of the
vote was easily discerned in each case. In
reference to one Of these cases, Mr.. Heath
declared: ''f the rule of the Australian
system Ia to prevail. reject the ballot. II
the rule Of common sense IL TO prevail,
count it." Speaking of the odd marks
made instead of crosses, Mr.. Heath said:
Well, under the sanctified provisions Of
the Australian law you would rule 1t out
but what would you think Of the Maine
Legislature which applied such a ruler
Throughout his argument, MIR. Heath
vigorously enforced his contention that
the legislature has judicial powers differ
ent from the powers Of the selectmen who
counted the votes and can settle election
cases In accordance with the intent Of the
voters. He referred to the seating of Gov.
Plaisted In 1881 and declared that a good
example to follow in dealing with the
perplexities and subtleties of this disap-
ers, even they revealed the Intention of
the voters and as to the family marked
ballots they had no bearing on the case.
The marks were there and there was no
ground for an intimation that they had
been put there by anybody but the voter
esentation OF the right of the Legislature
to rise above the requirement OF statutes
in the exercise Of its constitutional func-
lions.
Mr.. Soldiers was here as the represent
alive of Mr.. Francis Keefe. He was not
here to attack or defend the Australian
ballot system. even had Mr.. Heath left
him much time to do so. He supposed
an election. The Australian ballot, law
might or might not be best, but Mr..
Keefe had been legally elected under it.
Even Mr.. Heath admitted that Why
were the members OF the committee
hereo Because they had been legally
elected. Now they were asked TO say
to Mr.. Keefe, who had been legally elect
ed like themselves. that he could not
have his seat because they were going to
give it to Mr.. Staples who had not been
legally elected. Mr.. Heath spoke Of
voters who were DISTINGUISHED but every
one of these men might with five min
utes' attention have learned how to vote
under the Australian system. 1t is said
that the legislature should follow the in
tention of the voter. No law need
trouble it. 1t was as much above law as
the Kansas legislature which has just
been sitting and which knew no law. If
the doctrine of intention was to be car
ried out, a man might be declared elect
ed to the legislature by his fellow MEM
beers, while another man who had ran for
county office on the same ticket and IT.
ceived votes OF the same kind might be
declared by the courts not to have been
elected. This intention business is a
most peculiar and delusive thing. You
may take these ballots where it was
claimed the intention was SO and SO and
you don't know thing about it. 1--WE
known cases where men put stickers on
ballots because they were asked to do SO
and they did not care whether they did
it right or not
Mr.. Sci iers then took up IN detail the
different classes of defective ballots.
Now" he said, here's one Of the
funny things about intention. When a
man puts on Staples sticker that's
intention. But when the same man
scratches from the ticket the name of
the office, that's oversight. If you are
to take one act as expressing the intsn-
ton OF the voter but can you then not
the other? As to the three loose stick
ers, it was known on the very evening of
the election that such stickers had been
counted for Staples and Mr.. Keefe's
friends told him of it then. That was
really the cause of this contest. There
were no loose stickers in Eliot. Has 1t
occurred to you what an opportunity for
fraud there is in this play that you
should count these loose stickers? 1t is
a long cry from intention to. these loose
stickers. If they should be counted
there would be opportunity for fraud
which would endanger every candidate
in close election" In his argume mt