The Hartford republican. (Hartford, Ky.) 18??-1926, 1909-04-02

mo LEGAL ELEC-
ton WAS Held
In East Beaver Dam Voting
Precinct
On Question Of Stock Running at
-, Large Says Judge
TT. Birkhead.

pie of the East Beaver Dam voting
precinct mas been decided by Judge
+. F. Birkhead in man
ner probably not anticipated by
either side of the controversy. AT tie
regular election In 1908, the question
as to whether OF not cattle or any
species thereof should run at large
was submitted 10 the voters of Bast
Beaver. Dam Precinct for their deter
mination.
The vote as counted by the Officers
of election resulted in a tie. But
there were three votes about which
some question was raised "A contest
was filed and at the recent term Of
court the matter was submitted to
Judge Birkhead for determination.
On Monday of this week Circuit
Clerk e. G.. Barrass received from
the court the following written opin-
ion in which it is held that no
election was held on the question:
This is a contest over the result Of
am election that was held In East
Beaver Dam precinct ON the question
as to whether or not cattle or any
species thereof may run at large.
The election seems to have been
held last November. The vote was
counted by the Officers of election
seems to have been a tie. There are
three ballots returned as questioned
and rejected, that on the face appear
to have voted mo" ON the PROPOSE
ton. These three ballots were new
er counted by the officers OF election,
NEVER PLACED IN THE BALLOT
BOX, nor was the stub ever detached
from them by the officers Of election,
and a determination Of what shall be
done with these three ballots turns
the election II they he counted.
The only question in the case is
as to whether or not these three bal
lots should be counted. AS before
suggested, they were never placed IN
the ballot box; the stub was never
detached from them; that tie same
had been kept by the officers Of cleo
ton until they counted the other
ballot, then sealed In an envelop and
kept out of the ballot box and retur-
ned by the officers Of election to the
County Clerk.
The law requires that all ballots re-
ceived by the officers OF election shall
have the stub detached by the Of
ficers of election after they were
stamped. and then the ballots deposit
ed In the ballot box; and substanti-
ally provides that when the officers Of
election proceed to count ballots. that
II there be ballots that the officers
OF election be unable to determine
the will of the voter by an inspection
OF the ballot, they may then refuse TO
count them, keep them out OF the bal
lot box, put them In linen envelope
seal them, write their names across
the seal, put sealing wax on the seal,
and the seal OF the officers of cleo
ton impressed In the sealing wax.
The was not done In this case. The
primary purpose of the present sys-
tenn of voting Is to preserve the
secrecy Of the voter. That is that
the voter may cast his ballot with
out having 1t known how 1t was cast.
The secrecy of the ballots inthis case
has not preserved, as the name of
the voter Is still attached to the bal
lot and can be readily ascertained
who cast the ballot and how 1t was
cast. by an inspection OF the ballot
itself The voter did all in mis- power
to have his vote deposited an the
ballot box and to have 1t couted. but
the officers OF election failed to de-
tach the stub from the ballot and to
put It In the ballot box. thus leav-
ing the ballot exposed to the view OF
the officers of election. with the stub
thereto attached that any of the Of
ficers of election might discover how
the voter had cast his vote. do
not believe that the voter can be
deprived Of his right TO vote, by the
failure OF the officers Of election to
do their duty as pointed out under
the law. but l am inclined to think
that the Court would be establishing
a dangerous doctrine to hold that bal
lots that were never placed In the