The weekly messenger. [volume] (St. Martinsville [i.e. St. Martinville] La.) 1886-1948, 1908-11-28

Except the sending Of two Commissioners
with the voter when his ballots were so
marked. These forty votes must be de-.
iucted from the total votes cast at that
Poll, thereby leaving ten legal votes cast
at that Box for Contestant. and none for
Defendant.
At that Box it is shown that persons
were permitted to enter the space that
the Commissioners term a guard rail.
but which answered for one, and were
allowed to remain off and Oh during the
day cOnversing with the Commissioners.
This is not permissible under the law.
1t is privilege that the Watchers them
selvef are not granted by law during the
voting hours, it should not have been
permitted and is a practice that should
not be encouraged in the future. But
this infractiOn of the law is not suffi-
cient to invalidate the election and the
votes legally cast.
In the Second precinct find that the
Seventy votes cast for Defendant were
illegally cast for the reason that fifty
seven of these were prepared and the
name of the Defendant written on the
official ballot in the blank column by
the Commissioners for the vOterswhOwere
not Physically disabled from so doing
themselves. and that sixteen thereof
were similarly written and prepared. by
whom IT Is not shown, but evidently by
one and the same person because the
handwriting is identically the same in
every respect on each and every one OF
them. The other nine votes were legal
ly cast and are legal votes, and OF which
the Contestant received eight and thu
Republican Party one.
The one hundred and thirteen illega
votes thus cast in the two precincts
must be rejected, and thrown out, and
which must be deducted from the tOta
one hundred and thirty cast in boil
boxes. thereby leaving nineteen lega
votes in the Ward;-eighteen for Con.
tvstant, and one for the Candidate of tn,
Republican Party. This gives to Con.
testant "a majority of eighteen votes
which entities and gives him the cleo
ton for that Office over any other Candi
date.
Even were IL possible To count thes,
sixteen votes for the Defendant. it would
still leave majority Of two votes fO
Contestant. But it is 80 clear that the,
were not written and prepared by tn,
Voters, but by someone else for them
The manner they were cast and by whom
might have been ascertained had tn
Poll List Of that precinct been fOun,
and produced. 1t was not in the Box
nor with the Secretary Of State, no
with the Board of Supervisors. The rpa
sOn given by the Commissioners ~
marking and preparing these illega
ballots for the voters, Oh account Of ILL
teracy il not permitted nor sanctions,
| by the general election law, and is to
tally inadmissable In an official GENERA
state election. Blindness. or other ply
steal disabilities aud not intellectual
disabilities, are the causes giving RICH
to the Commissioners to mark and pre-
pare the voters Ballot, and which mus
be done and carried out under prOyisi on
and in the manner directed by ctiOl
IS, Of the General Election Law.
The Party device. instead of the Aus
tralian Ballot System pure and simple
was adopted by the Law Makers for jus
such casps, and thus made 1t pOssibl
and convenient for the illiterate voter {
cast his Ballot without assistance frOu
the Commissioners for thn Candidates o
the Party Of his choice. Any illiterat
man can easily distinguish the Dem
Ocratic Game Cock from the Republican
Elephant.
The fact that the law, in that respect
has not been followed in The past in tina
Ward ut General State Election, as tes
titled to. is no excuse and was no reasO
| for IL NOT hav. hou,, fol lnu,,d n md ,,hava
at that election. 1t cannot mitigate thi
gross infractiOn Of the law.
| feel justified in here saying tina
prior General State Elections and al
| Primary Elections in that Ward hav
established the fact that every vote
therein with the exception, perhaps. q
one or two. are Democrats and have thu
always voted. 1t Is here also proper I
remark that at the last Democratic Pi |
mary Election held in that Ward o
January 18th, 1908. every qualified vote
therein voted at aid Primary. with tn
the exception, perhaps. IF four or fiv
and their views are we'll known.
Defendant contends and maintains /
the alternative that the entire vote G
both precincts s'iOuld be- thrown GU
and the Election declared illegal. nul
and void for such irregularities, an
that another Election should be Ordere
for the office. cannot concur in sue
a proposition. and the Contention is nc
tenable in the face of the law and fact
aud when the actual legal votes Gas
can be ascertained with degree of Ger
tainty. While the acts of the COmmi.
siOners were illegal aud wrong, and oil
er voters. voting at both boxes, an
shown TO he legal votes. should not b
deprived Of their votes by casting out tn