The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1904-11-21

them made by election officers I'm placing
them upon a fle hook, "all OF these
marks upon the ballots are in contradic-
ton OF the statute. and IL It were strictly
construed would have 10 be classed as
defective for there was no evidence TO
show whether or not they were made by
the voter as distinguishing marks
which Is I'm direct contradiction OF the
present petitioners contention that ~
must appear affirmatively that IDENTIFY
ing marks are placed on the ballot by the
voter.
While the general assembly, which en-
acted the law might properly provide that
such ballots should be counted. no such
discretion is allowed 10 this board. II
must proceed strictly in accordance with
the statute. and the boards construction
OF the law Is I'm exact harmony with the
rules and reports quoted which were con-
CURED IN by Democrats and Republicans
alike.
NO MARK ON BALLOTS
Section IS Of chapter II of the General
Laws provides that no voter shall place
any mark upon his ballot by which II
may be afterwards identified as the one
voted by him. This prohibition does not
cover merely marks which will furnish
such identification TO this board. All bal
lots before being counted here pass
at the polling place where they are cast.
II might be possible by an arrangement
made previous to election that n dot dash
or other significant mark made In a par
tcular place upon a ballot. although not
disclosing 10 this board the name OF the
voter casting IT, would disclose to n per-
son watching the count at the polling
place the fact that the arrangement had
been carried out and that certain voters
hrI ~ -
for this reason that all marks other than
n cross I'm the designated place are pro-
hibited by law
IL is clear 10 the board that under the
provisions OF chapter II OF the General
Laws, the only valid or legal ballot Is
one upon which the voter has placed with
penctle provided for the use OF voters
or with one uniform with Il i'm color. a
cross to the right of the name OF the
candidate for whom he desires to vote and
upon which no other mark appears. The
question has been passed upon by the
supreme court OF this state under date OF
Oct. 18th, 1890. where In response TO n
request OF Governor John w Davis. II
said: "A cross Is the only mark author
lied by the statute TO be used 10 desig-
nate the person voted for. and Il is only
by force or the statute that Il gets its
significance for that purpose.
III another mark he used there is moth
ing to certify its meaning IL might he
conjectured that Il was used inadventent-
~ instead or cross but in our opinion
suoh conjecture would not Justify the
counting OF n. The statute declares No
voter shall place any mark upon his bal
lot by which n may be afterwards iden-
titled as the one voted BY hin. II marks
other than crosses were counted tbev
might be used both 10 answer the pur
pose OF crosses and 10 identify the hal
lot"
EASY OF OBSERVANCE.
Again on May oath. 1893, the supreme
court I'm response To Gov. n. Russell
Brown said; Section is provides that the
eleotor shall prepare his ballot bv marx
ing IN the appropriate margin cross
opposite the name Of the candidate OF his
cholce Tor each office 10 be filled This
requirement Is both explicit and EASY
or observance. II compiled with there
can be no uncertainty I'm regard 10 tho
electors Intention The placing OF anv
marx by voter on ballot by which ~
may he Identified as the one voted Nv
him is prohibited by said section Is"
The petitioner calls attention To sec,iop
4i Of chapter II OF the general laws which
provides that IL a voter marks more
names than there are persons 10 be voted
i''t A'' az tRii'e, OF ~ Tor any rcaSDn n
Is impossible 10 determine the voters
choice for any office 10 be filled. his bailo,
shall not be counted for such orrice. - ana
he contends that as this IL the only mart
of The statute which expressly provides
that ballot shall not ba counted the
board has no authority 10 reject anv
ballots except those mentioned IN ,hIs
section. II Is obvious that there NAV ba
many kinds Of illegal ballots NOT
enumerated IN this section. such a..
ballots marked with ink instead OF mcneil
or with pencil OF a distinguishing color
All these. according 10 the petitioner's
contention must he counted. even though
" may be obvious 20 the board or NAV
be made 10 appear by evidence thai the
secrecy ~ the ballot has been DESTROYED
or even Tint the ballot has been caat az
the result ~ open bJbery In fact the
whole theory ~ the petition IL that a
ballot must be counted even N ~ ls
proved and known 20 be an illegal haIlo,
unless II n -lf.A-e-f-the class enumerated
In chapter II, section ii We canno,
assent 20 such a conclusion. n would be
a singular outcome ~ a law intended 10
secure secrecy and privacy IN elections
n board whose certinoate IL made nnai