The Hartford herald. [volume] (Hartford, Ky.) 1875-1926, 1909-04-07
MUST HOLD THE
ELECTION OVER
If They Wish to Finally
Decide the Matter.
OPINION OF JUDGE B|RKHEAD
On the Question of Stock
Running at Large at
Beaver Dam.

A sui OF vast lHleTeSL 10 Lne peO-
pie of the East Beaver Dam voting
precinct mas been decided by Judge
7. f. Birkhead recently. At the
regular election in 1908, the question
as to whether or not cattle or any
species thereof should run at large
was submitted TO the voters Of East
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.
One day last 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
an 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 and
three ballots returned as questioned
and rejected, that on the face appear
to have voted "No" on the PROPOSE
ton. yrhese three ballots were new
or 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, if they be 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 the same
had been kept by the officers of cleo
ton until they counted the other
ballot, then sealed in an envelope and
kept out Of the ballot box and return
ed 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
fleera of election after they were.
stamped, and then the ballots Deposit
ed in the ballot box; and subSSttssnti-
ally provides that when the officers of
election proceed to count ballots, that
If 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.
This was not done in this case. The
primary purpose of the present sys-
TEN of voting is to preserve the
secrecy of the Ovter. That is, that
the voter may cast his ballot With
out having it known how it was cast.
The secrecy of the ballots in this case
was not preserved, as the name of
the voter is still attached to the bal
lot and it can be readily ascertained
who cast the ballot, and how It was
cast, by an inspection of the ballot
itself. The voter did all in mis- power
to have his vote deposited in the
ballot box and to have 1t counted but
the officers of election failed to de-
tach the stub from the ballot and to
put 1t in the ballot box, thus leav-
ing the ballot exposed to the view of
the officers OF election with the stub 4
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 10 vote. by the
failure OF the officers Of election to
do their duty as pointed out under
the law. but I am inclined to think
that the Court would be establishing
a dangerous doctrine 10 hold that bal
lots that were never placed In the