Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1900-05-24

election Clown meeting) is not consist
ent with the requirement imposed upon
the caucus officers to certify the names
of candidates to the proper officers to
be placed upon the official ballot; nor
with the penalty which excludes the
candidates of party from the official
| ballot provided for town: the town
clerk is not authorized to incur any ex-
pense to print an official ballot Hence
1t appears by implication that the legis-
lature did not intend, by this law, to
control caucuses called solely for the
purpose of nominating candidates for
town and village Offices. The legisla-
ture will meet prior to the holding of
the next town meetings and may be re-
lied upon to make certain it's intention
in this respect by a suitable amend
ment.
The law is silent upon the compost
ton Of city committee and is not def
mite in its terms as to the powers of
such committee. The functions of the
county and city committee are so in
volved that no attempt ismade in this
circular to define the powers and duties
of the city committee. The legislature
meets prior TO the holding of the next
city elections and WI undoubtedly give
due measure of attention to the amend
| ment of this law so as to make it more
complete and definite. 1t may be pre-
sumed that, in proper cases, within the
limits of the city, the duties and DOW
ers of the city committee are analogous
! to those exercised by the county COM
mittee.
No provision is made for the holding
of primaries for the nomination Of
candidates to be voted for at the eau
Gus. This feature of chapter S of the
Wisconsin statute of 1898 is repeated
and is not in force except in the city
of Milwaukee.
There exists no law which will COM
pei an elector whose vote may be chal-
lenged by any of the caucus officers to
subscribe an oath or affidavit that he
voted for the regular candidates of the
party for which said caucus is held at
the preceding general election. Sec
ton II of chapter 5, Revised Statutes,
1898, which in effect provided for such
s'ii ouDSIallIialSu Wy I"o LUZ
holders, has been repealed by section
II, chapter 341, laws of 1899. The
law provides that any resident who is
a duly qualified elector is entitled to
vote at a caucus provided he has not
already voted at a caucus of any other
political party for candidates to be
voted for or delegates to be chosen to
a convention to nominate candidates to
be voted for at the next ensuing cleo
ton. In view of these sole require
ments and the repeal of section IL,
chapter 5, Revised Statutes, 1898, it
will be seen that a challenged elector
shall not be denied the right to cast
his ballot because he did not vote for
the regular candidates of the party for
which said caucus is held, at the pre-
ceding general election. 1t would ap-
pear that the caucus inspectors shall
in their discretion form affidavits
which shall contain only the legal re-
quirements as above suggested. There
is no legal provision for requiring the
affidavit of the challenged electOr to be
substantiated by two free-holders.
The understanding is that the agreed
construction placed upon the law by
these attorneys shall be binding in both
the republican and democratic parties.