St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1910-02-26

perly counted. That while the law quo
ted by plaintiff and by him relied upon
(aection "a of Act No. 49, of 1906l, does
provide the manner of voting, yet it af
likes no penalty for any departure
therefrom-and the law maker having
seen proper to impose no penalty there.
for, this Honorable body is without any
authority SC to 90.
Further answering your respondent
AYERS, that the votes counted in the
First Ward were properly counted and
allowed in favor of both your Respon-
nent and his opponent. That when the
hrst ballot was reached. which did not
exactly comply with said Section "a Of
Act No. 49, of 1905, but which in every
respect indicated the voters intention
n manifestly made it to appear who
was his choice for the office Of Mayor.
(then being voted forl, it was ruled by
the officers in charge of the election
precints; that not only this one. but
that any such thereafter appearing,
should be counted and returned, for
eithercandidate, which was ~snbsequent-
lily done-all of which was agreed to
n done, in the presence of every one
present, without dissent from any me.
None of the said ballots having been
challenged and objected to, at the time,
put on the contrary, were received, al
lowed, counted and returned without
objection or dissent from sany Commits
sioner, Clerk or bystanders.
That the election law Of this State.
Section Eighty f80l paragraph two {2(,
Act 1bZ OF 1898, expressly provides that
on on any ballot where the voter has
not made the voting mark as required.
and 1t is impossible to determine the
choice Of said voter for the office, the
same snail not be counted. But that
where It Is possible to ascertain his in
tent1on, the same shall be ~canyassed and
counted. That this Statute is in cline
with every law writer upon the subject
matter, including such standard au-
thors as Judge Coolies and aMcCrary on
Elections who hold that:
"A great constitutional p~riYilege-the
highest unde the goyernment-is not
to be AIKEN away on a mere technical
ity, but the most liberal intendment
should be made in support of the elect
or,s action wherever the application of
the common sense rules which are ap-
piled in other cases will enable us to
understand and render it effectual.e
Further answering respondent AYERS:
That in Wards two (2), three f31 and
four l4), there were only ten (10l ballots.
east in which the voter had not made
the voting mark ais required. but In
every instance the voters intention
was made manifestly to appear. and
while under the law, Sec. Eighty 1901,
paragraph two ~ of Act 1872 Of 1898.
page 226, these should have counted and
cavassed and returned, yet the failure
of the election Commissioners So To-
work no injury upon either candidate.
That both candidates received five (51 of
these votes. That is to say:
In the Second Ward there were four
(4) ballots rejected, upon two Of these
the voter had declared for YOUR Res
pendent, upon the other two for the
Protestant.
In the Third Ward, there were three
ballots not counted, upon two Of these
the voter had declared for respondent,
upon the other for his opponent.
In the Fourth Ward, three ballots
were counted. Two Of these were for
opponent; onefor this Respondent. Re-
captivating these, we have:
HALPHEN LITTELL |
Ward 8 2
Ward 4 z
Total for each 5 S
So that, If counted or rejected the re-
suit of the election remains unchanged
Respondents being Elected by four
"a votes as returned by the Election
alleges, that the election having been
fairly and honestly conducted, ii must
not a Will not be inyalidaded by the ir-
Irregularities complained of by the Pro-
testant-which eanno affect the result.
as lis herein shown and demonstrated.
in the absence of any fraud, which
is not alleged or charged, but, on the
contrary denies, this Honorable BODY
will do (what our courts have invar-
IDLY donel give effect to the election.
That 1T is manifest that the Protest
ant, altho' he has had his "Dayin Court'
desires another one. Altho' farley de-
he desires another election.
That this Honorable body lin view of
the facts herein fnrnished) and the law
applicable thereto, is without authority
10 order another primary. That the
of the one held on the 18th ins5.
should be declared valid, Respondent
declared the nominee Hereunder. and
protest dismissed for being without
merit-Without foundation either in
laW or in fact.
BY His Attorney,
GILBERT Z. DUPRE.
State Of Louisiana,
Parish of st. Landry.
!, Michea1 Halphen, RESPONDENT in
The foregoing answer, being duly sworn
leposes and says:
That all Of the facts and allegations
therein contained are true and correct.
10 the best of his knoWlenge and belief.
help him God.
M.HALPEN.
SWorn to and subscribed before me at
0pelousas, La, this 18th day of February
4. d., 1910.
GILBERT e. DUPRE,
Notary Public.
Arguments vgarn heard fror oun