Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1903-11-05
MooN.a PHHsEs.
AN ANALYSIS OF THE ELECTION


Now that the election is over, and
the victory won by the Democrats is
complete, and Edwin Warfeld elected
Governor of Maryland, with both
branches of the Legislature in full
accord with him, one can view the
field over calmly and dispassionately
and sum up some of the causes tlRt
led to the general result. OF course
many theories will be advanced, but
the principal and real issue of the
campaign in this State was the chal-
lenge coming from the President of the
United States on the social and pOlit-
ical issue of the colored race. His
question was whether or not the col
ored man should be put on a social
and political equality with the white
race. This was the slogan that was
sounded in the ears of the people of
Maryland, and they responded 10 it
with no uncertain voice. The elee-
ton law has been literally construed
towards the enemies of the Maryland
democracy, as one of the young mem
beers Of the bar said today Hthe cleo
ton of Tuesday was marked by the
greatest closeness in carrying out the
law in number of the precincts of
the county and that had the law been
carried out strictly there would have
been a greater Democratic victory"
"The election officials he said,
"should be assembled short time be-
fore the election and given thorough
instruction in the proper procedure
under the new election law. As each
election passes, most of the officials
depart further and further from carry
ing ont the law. The great trouble is
that the officials are still guided, in n
large mesaure, by what they conceiv-
ed to be the intention of the voter.
Now that is exactly what was done
and in its stead il was provided that
the intention must be expressed in n
regular and prescribed way. That is
opposite the name of each candidate
must be cross mark, the lines of
which do-not cross the lines of the
square in any place. That is a per-
feetly plain provision and the design
of it is to make the casting of the
vote show that the voter has taken a
reasonable amount of care to find out
how to cast his vote properly. In
many of the precincts, however, this
rule was constantly violated. An en-
tire mistake in this matter seems to
be accepted by many officials. 1t seems
they draw a distinction and only cast
out ballot where the lines go into
another square. Now there is no dis
tinotion in the law, whatever, and
whether the lines so out at the top,
bottom or sides, the ballot should be
rejected.
Another part of the law was not
carried ont strictly, that relating to
distinguishing marks. One of the
objects of the law was to prevent the
possibility of bribery by providing
that all ballots with distinguishing
marks should be thrown out. That is
the reason why the exact cross mark
is insisted upon. Yet in many eases
ballots with all kinds of extra marks
and disfgurements were counted. Now
il may be all right to stretch the law
a little where the Disagreement was
plainly an accident or printer mark,
but even then il should be remember
ed that the voter should have scruti-
nized his ballot when he went in the
booth and asked for new one if it
was not proper in every way. But the
officials, in some casts, counted ballots
that plainly should have been rejected.
Another way in which the law was
not carried ont was the failure TO
keep those not connected with carry
ing ON the election one hundred feet
from the poles. in fact, in many cases
people We're allowed in the polling
places almost indiscriminately.