Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1902-01-23
rExrorsussr xsaar0K.s DrcIsIox
city n 1873


TEzToPJussE xEaar0E's rEcrsyoy
MarlJoro Gazette.
The opinion OF the Court IN decid
ing the contested election cases for
the Office of County Commissioners
plainly states the law applicable &c
the three principal points involved,
1t was stated in the petition of the
contestants, Duvall and Wells, to
which demurrer was fled and ruled
good first, that a number of ballots
were rejected by the Judges OF Elec-
tion because of projection OF por-
tion of the Y mark without the block,
which, while detective in the forma-
ton of the letter, was ut the same
time indicative of the voters inten-
tion and should have been counted
second, that number of ballots
were rejected by the judges because
they were improperly folded and,
teird, that number of ballots were
rejected because more men were
voted for than there were Offices TO
be filed.
On the first point the Court in
substance said 'sThe law intended
the lines of the square to mark the
limit beyond which there should be
no guessing, no speculation as to
the voters intention. The lines of
the square are legal boundaries
marking the limit, on the one hand
of the voters right to indicate inten-
ton, and on the other, the limit of
the judges right to consider intens
ton.
This is the point briefly stated
When the question of intention has
no limitations, it must, of necessity,
be matter of wide speculation, and
boundless conjecture of a man s eff
forts 10 vote correctly opens the
doors to endless fraud and corrup-
ton. What might be construed by
one or all the judges to be a good in
tention, il intention is the governing
principal, might be the voters
method of showing the bribe giver
that he had voted according to a
previously arranged plan made be-
fore entering the booth.
"As long as the intention of q
voter is to be considered in the ex-
animation of ballot by the judges
of election before il is counted or re-
iected, so long will there be an op-
portunity for bribery and the count
ing of ballots which are deceitfully
marked. There must be some fixed
rule, some STREE requirement of the
law which limits ihe voter and limits
the judges, aud that in the nature
OF a legal method, which legal meth
cd must be the only correct manner
Of voting.
when judge of election is given
authority, to speculate on what a
voter might have meant or might
have intended, the result of elections
will depend upon the whim and
fancy of the judges of election,
rather than upon majority of legal
ballots correctly marked In accord
ance with a fixed provision of the
law"
The second ground in the petition,
namely, the rejection OF ballots be-
cause of improper folding was like
wise considered in the opiaion OF
the Court. = Judge Merrick said in
part: Now the voter having failed
to comply with the law as TO the
manner in which he should fold his
ticket, presents himself to the Judge
at the ballot box with q ticket not
folded as the law directs, and not
displaying upon The back thereof
the endorsement without which the
judge is commanded not to put such
ticket in the box. Instead of being
folded so as 10 display the endorse
ment of the judge who gave it out,
either his name or initials, an en-
tirely plain back is only visible.
What is the Judge TO do? Can he
open this ticket and inspect it tose
if it has the proper endorsement ?
Certainly not his power and authori-
~ is limited 10 looking at the expos
ed back, aad if the proper indorse-
ments are not there where the law
requires them to be, then he cannot
put such ticket in the box, and they
acted rightly in so refusing to do
If the voter loses his vote thereby,
he can blame only himself. The
officer must obey the law.
To the third paragraph in the petit
ton which makes complaint that
ballots were rejected because more