Decorah public opinion. (Decorah, Winneshiek County [Iowa]) 1895-1928, 1906-09-05

and they will not be used in the cleo.
ton in Winneshiek county this wear.
After hearing the arguments for
temporary Injunction and considering
the matter thoroughly Judge Hobson
at s 80 O'Clock last evening issued a
temporary injunction restraining the
Board of Supervisors from accepting
and using the U. s. Standard Voting
Machines purchased recently by
them, until the matter has been
finally determil ed in trial before the
court. This means that the voting
machines will not be used in Winnie
shiek county this fall and may never
be used here
1t all came about in this way. The
people of the county became indignant
when they learned of the purchase of
these machines, and held mass meet
ings in the different townships, elect
ing delegates to represent them at a
county mass meeting in DEBORAH. At
this meeting committee of one from
each township was chosen to solicit
funds to fight the matter in the
courts. After raising about $1,000.
this committee selected from their
number an executive committee to
take charge of the matter. They met
last Thursday and retained Attorney s
E. r. Acers, c. N. Houck and N.
Willett, paying them $40 each retain
er's fee, the further amount to be
paid them to be left to the Judgment
of the committee after the matter had
been settled. He. Hjerleid was asked
and consented to act as plaintiff in the
trial of the matter, with permission
to withdraw at any time upon ten
days notice.
The attorneys prepared their case,
went to West Union and asked Judge
Hobson for a temporary injunction.
Judge Hobson issued an order for the
Board of Supervisors to answer yester.
day (Tuesday) afternoon. Coming to
DEBORAH he opened court. The attor-
neys for the Board of Supervisors are
W. M. Strand, Frank Sayre and John
B. Kaye.
The petition for the plaintiff is
document too lengthy to reprint. 1t
sets out as grounds for temporary
injunction that in securing the con-
tract the U. S. Voting Machine Co.
represented to the Board that the
contract bound the county sim ply to
a trial of the machines, and not an
absolute purchase. and it was so
understood by the Board. That the
con pany represented the above to
Mr.. Hover, that he believed that the
machines would only cone for exper-
mental trial, that it was plain at
tempt to defraud. and that Mr. Hover
would not have voted for the contract
if he had understood it. That the
contract is void because the machines
do rot conform to the state Law con-
corning them; that they have not
been properly passed upon by the
commission for that purpose; that the
law with reference to voting machines
is unconstitutional as being violative
of the vote by ballot; and of several
other reasons of similar form. That
unless restrained the machines will
be accepted. used, and possibly paid
for, and the plaintiff will be injured
and have no recourse. The petition
closed asking for temporary in
junction restraining the Board from
accepting, using or paying for the
machines.
The afternoon was spent by the at
torneys on both sides in arguing the
matter of temporary injunction and at
supper time Judge Hobson announced
that he would make decision at eight
O'Clock.
Promptly at the above hour he re-
opened court. Some affidavits were
filed on both sides. after which Judge
Hobson before giving his decision
recited the history of the method of
voting, stating that in the early days
there was no uniform method of Of
ing, that in New England corn and
beans were used to vote with, as de-
different candidates; then
came viva voce vote, division of the
voters in sides, etc. Later they wrote
their ballots by hand, and as elections
and candidates increased printed
ballots came into use, and the question
as to whether they were legal or not
raised as much interest as to whe ther
a voting machine is a ballot, does
at the present time. The use of the
voting machine came as revolution,
and he knew of only four cases being
decided by Supreme Courts, the first
in 1897 in Rhode Island. the second in
the third in Michigan
and the fourth in Illinois. In some
OF these there were diss enting
opinions, although the majority in
each case held the vote by voting
machine legal In this case there
are some elements different from any