The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1902-10-23

OF tue Legislature, TWO county
commissioners, or two County
Auditors, each voter shall vote for
one candidate from the district
lying north of the Susquehanna
river, and one candidate from the
district lying south of the river,
and the official ballot shall so desig-
nate. Also, that every third term
the nominee for the Office of Sheriff |
and County Treasurer shall be |
named from the south side of the |
river, as has been the custom in
past years. "
This is one of the rules of the |
party, and nominations are to be |
made, the vote cast and counted |
under this rule as much as any
other rule of the party, unless the |
same is contrary to public policy. |
That it is not contrary to public |
policy, and that similar rules have
been enforced by the Courts 50 often
that we deem it too plain to need
further argument or comment.
What then was the duty Of the Off
GERS of the party, who were called
upon to prepare the official ballot
for the voters at the primary cleo
tons, and to hold the primaries,
and the officers of the Convention?
Evidently, to carry out this rule i'll
good faith. Instead of which the
evidence clearly establishes that
this rule was set aside, or evaded
by the County Chairman in pre-
pairing the official ballot for the pur.
pose of defeating the very object
for which this amendment was
adopted, or, in other words, to de-
feat the only candidate for County
Commissioner from the district
south of the river. Instead Of
printing the official ballot as it was
printed, viz: For County Com
missioner, vote for two (north side)
George w. Sterner. William Bog
ert (south side), William II. Fish
er," the ballot should have been
, prepared SO it would designate what
the rule, as amended, required it to
designate; that a voter could vote
for only ond person for that office,
upon either the north or south side
of the river, in other words should
have read For County Commiss-
ioner (north side), vote for one,
George w. Sterner, William Bog
ert (south side), vote for one, Will
lam H. Fisher.
Had the ballot been printed in
this manner, as plainly required by
the rules, there can be no doubt
that William II. Fisher must have
been one Of the nominees for that
Office. Under this rule it was also
the duty of the election officers tC
reject all ballots upon which voter:
had voted for more persons thar
they were entitled to vote for. Tha
is, as each voter had right to votC
for but one candidate in the dis
trict, as the rule calls it. lying nortl
of the river, if a ballot was voted
for the two candidates north of the
river, it was plain the voter haC
voted for one person he was not en-
t titled to vote for, and as there wa
l no way to ascertain which candi
: date he desired to vote for, that h
. was entitled to vote for, the who'll
t vote for County COMMISSIONS
should have been rejected, and tn
Convention, when these return
S were brought in, should hav
r thrown out such returns as clearl,
showed that the voters had no
: complied with this rule, or rather
= where the returns showed this rul
| had been violated.
In the present case, too, ii wa
| an absolute impossibility that bot
t candidates should be nominate
Y from the same side of the river. !
+ this rule had been observed AM
E the Convention, instead of declar
ing the two persons nominated VIII
E received the highest vote, wher
: such two resided in the same dis
trict Gas designated in the rule
r should have declared the person re
i ceiving the highest number of votes
0 who resided north of the river. a
one of the candidates, and the per
t son who received the highest mum
: Der of votes that resided south c
= the river, the other candidate. l
t being entirely clear that the plail
intention and meaning of the abov
r rule that one of the candidates t
t be nominated by the Convention
e should reside north of the river
= and one of the candidates nominal
a ed should reside south of the river
II the convention should have carrie
n out this plain intention and mean
2 ing of the rule so declared.