The news-democrat. (Providence, R.I.) 1906-1909, 1906-10-05

den and clerks except that the numbers
OF votes for the following named candi-
dates were as follows: John j. King, as
candidate for delegate TO the city CON
vention, 233. and for school committee 221
Michael J. Sullivan. 26l; William III. Nc
Laughlin 2eS.
There was no evidence disclosing who
had stolen said missing list
I'm view OF the aforegoing facts, this
board is OF the opinion and finds as mat
ter of law as follows:
THAT the failure OF the warden and
clerks TO count said ballot and make their
returns 10 this board on the night OF said
caucus was not necessarily fatal This
board doubts whether there was suffi-
Client reason for not proceeding TO count
the ballots at said caucus as directed by
law; but. I'm the absence of evidence es-
tahlishng fraud relative to said failure TO
then proceed, this board is of the opln-
ion that IL was legally competent for the
warden and clerks to complete their du-
ties at said office the next day. as failure
TO observe the directions of the law as to
place and time under such circumstances
is not considered sufficien. TO vitiate the
caucus.
Under somewhat similar circumstances
this board previously has so ruled rela-
tive 10 the Democratic caucus held I'm the
Third ward in 1904, I'm which case IL ap-
peared that the warden and clerks could
not count the votes and complete their
duties on account OF the riotous conditions
prevailing, and therefore brought the bal
lot box and lists 10 this office and the
next day thereafter counted the ballots
and made their returns according to law
what was the effect of the failure to
return the missing check list and the re-
fusal Of the four clerks To- certify four OF
the five lists returned? This involves
most important questions of law. II It be
I m Ind hot In E.NH..
tify such lists, the correctness OF the
same might be proved by the testimony
Of the clerks before this board on a petit
tion for recount, or by other testimony,
If the clerks arbitrarily and without due
cause refused to certify the lists and gave
no adequate reason therefor. yet there re-
mains the vital question, what is the ef-
feet of the failure 10 return the missing
check list?
THE practical effect on a caucus OF
such a failure is the same as IL no check
lists were returned If a single check
list is missing the ballots found I'm the
box on a recount by this board cannot be
verified by the remaining check lists
alone. Fraudulent voting might take
place by the colluson OF a single clerk
by his allowing persons TO vote on other
persons names: and Il the list is secreted
or destroyed, the evidence thereof would
be practically destroyed
was stuffed secretly by the warden or
some other person, and a single ,ast was
missing, there could be no comparison
made between the number of ballots and
the number of names of persons checked
as voting. The record evidence, which
is usually the best evidence, would be
gone. The safeguard collateral to the bal
lots provided by the law would fail.
THE purpose or the check lists is not
only TO determine who has a right To
vote, but also TO determine the number
who have voted, and any material diff
ference between the number of ballots
and number of names of persons checked
as voting, not satisfactorily explained is
fatal to the validity of the caucus, as has
been decided a number OF times by this
board and by our supreme court.
Further, without the return of the
check lists there would bN break i'm the
caucus system, as this board would be
| unable to strike of the lists to be used
| I'm the caucuses OF other parties and off
nomination papers, the names Of those
| who voted In the caucus the check lists
OF which were not returned.
For this board to hold that the return
| OF the check lists is not mandatory under
| the caucus law would open the door to
| the possibility of gross frauds, and make
| IL easier to successfully maintain the
same Such frauds are carried on as Sc
cretly as possible. and ballot boxes might
be and have been stuffed and ballots
added TO and distracted without detec-
| ton of the guilty party or parties; and
| In such case without the check lists IL
| would be necessary to detect the fraud
when committed, and prove II by pre-
| ponderance OF oral evidence under con-
| nicting, partisan and perhaps perjured
testimony.
"rhe facts in this case. showing no evi.
dence OF actual fraud affecting the bal
| lots, present n strong appeal for sup
porting the validity OF the caucus 1t ia
| urged that any caucus officer I'm sym
! patfry with n defeated faction might Sc
crete or destroy list and thereby de-
| feat CAUCUS, If tho return OF the lists
| should be held mandatory.
ut was claimed under the evidence that
| by tho aid OF the warden n tally of the
| ballots as voted for the candidates OF
| the two factions respectively was kept
| and that members or the losing faction
| knew the result at the time OF the clos
| ing OF the polls; and IL was suggested, II
not claimed under the evidence that one
| Of the caucus clerks was responsible for
| tho abstraction of the missing list: but
| this board does not see how II can support
tho same without establishing the legal
precedent that the return OF the check
lists IL not required by the law.
Further, this board understands that
its view that this provision OF the law
~ mandatory, n supported by the de-
| cision Of orr supreme court in tho case
| relative 20 the Democratic caucus I'm the
| Third ward IN 1902, which WAS held ~
legal by this board and by said court
Further. this board decided I'm view OF
said opinion that the Democratic caucus
| IN the Tenth ward I'm 1904 was Illegal
| This decision was on the main ground
| that a person without authority acted as
| warden and excluded the legal warden
| from acting. as such practicl usurpation
v - h. a. - .