Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1903-02-10

decisions of our court and must so re
main until changed by the proper tribu
nal. We do not forget in this connec
ton section 20, Chapter Of the Revised
Statutes which forbids the reception O
any ballot with distinguishing marks
thereon; but we claim that this became
obsolete on the passage of the law o.
1891, as it is totally opposed to thai
complete and inviolable secrecy sur
rounding the expression of the choice Of
the voter which is the great aim and
purpose of the present law. How could
the election officials refuse to receive
such ballot without examining IL; and
how could they examine IL without vio-
lating the present law? But even this
section says such ballot must be counted
after il has once been received into the
ballot box.
We believe that the machinery Of cast.
ing ballot should be made as simple
and void Of technicalities as possible,
yet surrounded with all proper safe
guards. We are not prepared to deny
that the passage of the Australian Law
was a step in the right direction, yet IL
does not impress us as the dawn of the
Millennium, or as fetish which all must
fall down and worship on penalty of
being deemed in favor Of intimidation,
bribery and fraud. Fair criticism never
hurt ana good law. A large part of the
denunciatious against those who dare TO
point out weak spots in the working of
this law emanates from those who utter
il for stage effect, trying te wrap the
- u k,.s farfraf ffNl
sometimes Of the obtruding ears.
When the Australian Law first swept
over the country, the rule Of technical
compliance was invoked to an extreme;
but in obedience to public sentiment, the
rule has gradually been relaxed and I'M
important omissions or additions con-
nected with the marking of ballot not
allowed to destroy a mans suffrage.
The state of Connecticut was one of the
first states of the Union to adopt the
Australian ballot, and in recent de-
cision it's supreme court overruled its
early decision and held as follows,
marks upon the face of ballots which
appear or are shown to have been made
accidentally and not for the purpose of in
dicating the voter, and changes for the
existence of which a reasonable expla-
nation, consistent with honesty and good
faith, either appears upon the face of the
ballot or is shown by proof, do not rem
der the ballot void" This covers fully
our contention. If n voter accidentally
or without evil intent makes additional
marks on his ballot, besides those requir-
ed by law, his ballot should still be
counted, provided he has marked it suffi-
ciently so that it is possible to determine.
his choice. Whether or not such be the
law in this state at the present time, we
affirm that such ought to be the law.
The same presumption of innocence that
throws its protection over the prisoner
1t the bar of justice should cover the
American citizen as he approaches the
ballot box. Mistakes, carelesSness or
ignorance are not crimes in themselves,
neither are they the sure indicia of at
tempted fraud. While they should not
be favored by law, they should not be
nnduly punished.
In conclusion, we respectfully submit
that proper consideration of the evident
intention of the voter is necessary ele-
ment in rightly determining his choice
md will tend in large measure to pre-
serve the purity of the ballot box and
secure a genuine expression of public |
sentiment.
WILSON & GRAY.
South Paris