The daily progressive-miner., 1916-05-10

C0t 0kl0 ot&10 CtvClVRC Alo VI bt then and there handed to the Com missioner and is not to be opened except by an order of the Court and in it's presence, and not then unless it be necessary so to do in order to decide a contest. The method of counting is as follows: Those who consent to the sale of liquor in Ketchikan during the year from July 1, 1916, to July l, 1917, will write the word "Wet' i on the ballot; those who are not in favor of liquor being sold in Ketchikan during said year will write the word "Dry'' on the bal lot.
 As each vote is received, if the name of the person voting is in the census book the name shall be checked, and if the name is not in the census book a separate notation shall be made thereof.
 Counting"
 When all have voted who offer to vote, the said U. s. Commission CT shall proceed, publicly, to count those ballots only which are in the ballot box, and he shall certify the result, and shall forward to the Clerk of the Court the census books and all the envelopes con- taining ballots.
 If it appears from the counting of the ballots in the ballot box that neither side has majority of all the qualified persons, then the Court will determine from evil dence produced at a full hearing which, if any, of the votes in the envelopes are entitled to be count ed, and will count them according ly.
 If, on counting all the qualified votes cast and considering the num- Der of qualified persons who did not vote, it should appear that the number of votes cast on either side might be materially affected by counting the number of qualified persons who did not vote, then some equitable means will be adopted to ascertain whether or not those qualified persons who did not vote do or do not consent to the sale of liquor, and effect will be given accordingly. It is for that pur- pose, and also to give the liquor dealers an opportunity to adjust their business if the town should go dry" that the vote is to be taken thus early.
 l cannot refrain from saving that there will be no innocent or reason able misinterpretation of what I have said if you will bear in mind two things:
 l. The law requires that the per- son desiring the license shall show to the satisfaction of the Court that a majority of the qualified persons (the law does not say qual- flied voters) have, in good faith, consented. Therefore it is up to the liquor dealers to show this, and without such showing the Court is powerless to grant license.
 2 The method adopted is de- signed primarily to afford persons an opportunity to express their wishes without publicity-that is. that the good faith wishes of as many as possible may be ascertain ed. For want of a more concise name, the method pointed out is spoken of as "Voting" g"-that this is not strictly an election--it is only a method to allow secret ex- pression of the consent or non- consent. The result of the method adopted may, however, be final be- cause enough people may vote to determine the question. If only small proportion of qualified per sons express their preference, the result will not afford fair basis of test. It is therefore to the interests of both sides to see that as large a number as possible cast their votes, because if either side has in the ballot box majority of all qualified persons, there will be no call for any further effort to determine the mooted question of consent or non-consent.
 Yours, etc,
 ROBERT w. JENNINGS,
 Judpe.