The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1901-07-12
SECRECY OF THE BALLOT.

WV may duult ludt IL IL SOOU pOlltlC1l
Judgment on the part Of Missouri Re
publicans to discard the issues presented
by the Republican record in Missouri
IN State administration during and after
the Civil War and in the st. Louis mrl-
nicipal administration under Ziegenhefn.
But how is the Republican prcdica-
ment to be bettered by transparent in
sincerity and misstatement on other is
sues? Ziegenheinism was crushed be-
cause the people perceived that 1t was
selfish. tricky and insincere. The same
qualities brazenly exposed in any other
way will meet the same popular disap-
proyal.
The Republic has mentioned the weak
ness into which Judge Robinson, the one
Republican member of the Supreme
Court, has fallen by emitting to file a
dissenting opinion in the Funkhouser
election case and descending from the
bench to deliver an abusive stump
speech against Judge Marshalrs de.
cision.
To show still more emphatically Judge
Robinson's inconsistency, let us 70 back
to the Windes vs.. Nelson case, decided
last December. In that case Judge Mar
shall used almost the identical language
afterward employed in the Funkhouser
case. Judge Robinson concurred in the
decision. Neither the Globe Democrat
nor any other Republican paper ex-
pressed surprise or alarm.
JudCQ MarchoIl co;x3 i, A.. rr,.-
Nelson opinion: ''The wisdom and ne
cessity OF a secret ballot are more an
parent today than ever before in the
history Of the world The pres-
ervation Of the secrecy Of the ballot is.
In my judgment, Of more vital necessity
TO the independence of the voters and
TO the perpetuity Of our system of gov.
eminent than the question Of who shall
MI any office under the government.
from the highest down to the lowest"
lie quoted fully from McCrary on
Elections, the authority followed also.
among Others, in the Funkhouser case.
Judge Robinson did not perceive any
thing but good law in the December case.
At least, he did not think 1t worth while
to dissent. In the Funkhouser case he
dissented, but did not think It worth
while to give single reason Of law. He
just dissented.
Is it conceivable that jurist on such
grave matter as the secrecy of the bal
lot, would have been silent when the
decisions We're rendered IL he had hon
estly believed that wrong was being
committed or mistake was being made
In the Interpretation Of the law?
In the Funkhouser case, over which
Judge Robinson makes his st. Louis
stump speech and the Globe Democrat
raises its political rumpus, the pivotal
question, as Judge Marshall said in rem
dering the decision, was whether the
Circuit Court had power to order the
Election Commissioners and the parties
htigant to make a comparison of the
ballots with the voting lists and to re-
quire the Election Commissioners to re-
turn and certify to the court all the
facts which either of the parties to the
aforesaid election contest may desire
and request to have returned, and
which may appear from the said ballots
| and the examination and comparison
thereof"
In other words, the whole question
was whether ballots should be protected
by the secrecy which has always been
held necessary to insure absolute liberty
to the voicing Of public opinion, or be
exposed to the curiosity and conspiracies
OF partisan manipulators.
On that question Judge Robinson has
declined to record in the law reports of
missouri an argument In favor of de-
sroytng the historic secrecy of the bal.
lot. But he has no scruples against will.
flying the Supreme Court in general and
obscure stump-speech phrases.
Judge Robinson and the Globe Demo.
crat Will be compelled by the people to
either drop the subject or face the single
issue involved in the Funkhouser deci.
sion-the secrecy Of the ballot. Is It rieh,
and lawful to hold over the citizen the
threat of exposing his ballot to unscrup.
ulous party heelers under trumped-up
election contests? II not, the Funk.
houser decision is unquestionably sound
law and good American doctrine.
What Judge Robinson really thinks Of
the law as laid down by great national
authorities like Cooley and McCrary and
by Judge Marshall may be seen in his
concurrence last December and his re.
frsal to give legal reasons for political
and perfunctory dissent In June.