The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1902-12-26

coed to wage war upon her, that is Il
violation of the Monroe Doctrine.
Taking custom houses and tempo
rary occupation may be the begin
ming of permanent occupation.
DECISION ON BALLOT LAW.
The Court of Appeals has rendered
Il decision i'll the case OF William I.
Coulchan VS.. Warren {. White in
which the order of the Circuit Court
Of Allegany county is sustained. 1t
decides anumber ofinterestIng points
respecting the practical operations
of the present ballot law.
The case was begun by Mr.. Coule-
han, Democrat, who was contestlng
with Mr.. White, Republican, for the Of
flee oft the Mayor Of Cumberland. The
latter was declared elected. Coulehan
asked the Court to order a recount
of the ballots. This was done. At
the trial the contested ballots were
separated into 81 classes, and, i'll the
opinion by Judge a. Hunter Boyd
and the late Associate Judge Edward
Stake, they were counted or rejected
as follows:
Nos. 1, . and 3, where the cross
marks were either within the square
touching its lines or crossing them
were counted.
Class No. +, where mark extended
across the line, but so little as to be
hardly perceptible, were rejected by
the Court below, but counted by the
Court of Appeals.
Class No. ), where mark very vlsl-
bly, extended over the line, were re-
jected.
Classes G, I and s included marks
within the square, but not exactly a
cross like the letter Y. These were
counted.
Class No. 9, where the cross was
proper except that some of the lines
were slightly double, as where the
voter attempted to make it more dis
tinct. were counted.
Class No. 10 was where the mark
had many lines forming a star instead
of a cross. These We're rejected.
Class No. II consisted of ballots
with the mark within the space but
not a complete cross, as one line
only extended slightly over the other
and these were counted.
Class No. 10 was somewhat similar
to No. s and were counted.
Class No. 10 was rejected because
the mark only formed one-half of 4
cross.
Class No. II was rejected. 1t was
where six persons had been voted for,
but one aftcrward rubbed out. Only
five were to be elected.
Class No. Is had ink on the bacl,
of the ballot and was, as the Court
thought, an accident.
Class No. 10 was where a wet
mark had made duplicate when
folded and was counted.
Class No. 20 had a pencil dot by
the mark and was rejected.
Class No. 81 was very similar to
No. 1 Q and was counted.
Class No. 90 were ballots marked
correctly, but challenged by mistake,
and they were counted.
Class No. % were ballots havinga
long, pale pencil mark running across
the page. These We're rejected.
Class No. "a had perfect marks in
blue pencil. Counted.
Class No. % had cross-over marks
rubbed out and blurred and these
were rejected.
Another class of ballots Was that
without the election judges initials
thereon, but these were counted, as
it was shown that he had by mistake
placed his initials on the stub rather
than on the back Of the ticket, and
all of the tickets in the Third ward
were voted in the same manner.
After their rejection, which was be-
cause the marks might have been
used for Identification, the lower
court counted the ballots and de-
clared Mr.. White elected by 81 ma.
jority.