The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-09-21
END IS NEAR.
Final Brief in Parker Hughes
Case Filed.
Double Marked Ballots Are Civ
en- Careful Consideration.
HUGHES MAKES CLAIMS
His Attorneys Say He Doesn't
Need Twice-Marked Ones.
Question About Ballots Which
We're Marked +" Rejected. .

Judge Carver finished this afternoon
the preparation of a S0-page brief in
behalf Of J. W. F. Hughes in tha Far
ker-Hughes contest for the office of
mayor of Topeka The brief is now in
the hands Of the printer. and viii be
filed in the supreme court Gun Tuesday
Of next week
The keynote Of the argument appears
to be sounded in the early pages of the
brief where the attorneys for Mr.
Hughes advance the theory that: The
voter must now express his intent in
certain way. else his vote viii nor be
counted
The defense was obliged assume this
position in order to Justify its demand
that the 200 double marked Parker
votes be rejected. AS no serious attempt
is made to deny that the intent of the
voters of these tickets was to vote for
Mr.. Parker the attorneys are forced to
plead that courts will no longer enter
upon the field of conjecture to give eff
feet to his intent
In effect, the attorneys for Mr.. Hughes
want strict, technical Interpretation
Of the law. which will disregard the
manifest intent Of voters. and rule out
ballots which were plainly voted for
Parker, but challenged because Par
ker's name was crossed in both col
umns of the ticket.
The attorneys for the defense deny,
however, that their case hinges on the
ruling ON this point of double marked
ballots. They say:
This case does not, as claimed by
counsel for plaintiff, turn upon the view
which the court may take as to the
legal effect of thus marking twice for
mayor Even If such ballots should be
counted, still we claim that on the other
objections Hughes must be given the
majority of the votes. Many of the OBJ
Jections made by Parker to Hughes
votes are of the most trivial character
When it comes to measuring up the OBJ
Jections, while many are of the same
general character, yet it viii be found
that valid, legal objections lie to more
Of the ballots claimed for Parker than
do to those claimed for Hughes. Sor1e
are conceded to be well taken for both
parties"
The brief also states: I'VE are I'M
able to say how many ballots there are
to which no objection can be made ex-
cept that they are marked double for
Parker When the ballots were being
counted, as soon as it was noticed that
a ballot had double marking. it was laid
aside without stopping to note any 9TH
er distinguishing marks which may
have been made"
The brief makes long argument
with voluminous citations. to sustain
the contention that the intent of the
voter cuts no figure under the Austria |
liam ballot law. "A portion of the aTgu-
ment on this point is as follows:
What ballots should be excluded be- |
cause Of the markings? The answer to |
this question depends upon the view we |
take of the Australian ballot law. 1t is |
a useless and Improbable task to ex- |
anime decisions of other states. |
In some states, the provisions of their |
Australian ballot law are held to be |
merely directory. In others the courts |
cling to the doctrine of the intent OF the |
voter.
In this case. we are not called upon |
discover the rule for this state. Others |
have done that for US, and this court |
need now but follow precedent estab- |
Eshed after careful consideration of the |
principles involved. The voter |
must now express his intent in a GER |
tain way, else his vote will not be |
counted The courts viii no longer en-
ter upon the field OF conjecture to give |
effect to his intent. If he does not cast |
such a ballot as the law prescribes. he |
has no right to have his vote counted. |
Some courts have by their decisions !
frittered away nearly all the bene- |
fetal provisions of such statutes, en- |
aiding voters to do substantially as |
they please about marking ballots |
They do not seem to be able to compre- |
bend the change made in the election |
system, nor appreciate enough of the /
Importance Of secret ballot to give /
effect to the efforts of legislatures to /
that end"
The brief devotes considerable atten- |
ton to the consideration of ballots not /
been voted In the second precinct of
the First ward IS ballots were returned |
in a. separate package marked 'Defec-
tive or objected ballots, not voted" In /
the third precinct of the Third ward, |
eight ballots We're returned, and in the /
third of the Fourth three were return
ed. The Hughes attorneys maintain |
that none of these ballots should be /
counted. Most of them are Parker
votes. The reason for the position taken
by Hughes attorneys is that the court /
can not tell whether the ballots were
actually voted or not
In its opening paragraph the brief
makes a bitter reference to the attor-
neys for the other side. tt said:
Counsel for plaintiff begin their T
brief with wall about the manner in I
which the commissioner made his re-
port. With a good deal OF unctuous I
posing of assumed virtue and honesty [
for themselves. they charge bad faith +
on opposing counsel As these charges |
are unfounded in fact and without sup /
port in the record. we shall ignore them,
leaving those who make them to the +
enjoyment of self-praise and fictitious
virtues Of their own. and condemnation /
of imaginary faults Of others