The Palatka news and advertiser., 1916-09-15

during a contest; and that they are
undoubtedly better evidence of the
vote cast, than the returns and should
prevail where there is a difference.
This case is supported by a long list
of cases cited in the note, which hold
that where ballots have been pre-
/ served in strict accordance with the
statutory requirements so that they
have in no way been tampered with,
they are the primary and controlling
evidence of the number of votes cast
for the respective candidates and are
sufficient in themselves, without fur
ther evidence, to contradict and over
throw the return of inspectors.
| The list of cases cited in support
of this proposition is entirely too long
to be recited here, but suffice it to
say, that any one interested in veri-
flying this matter can get access to
the report where the case and the
notes are found in the office of any
lawyer in Palatka.
In Ruling Case Law, Vol. 9, treat
ing the subject of elections, at page
1854, l find the following rule:
"RECOURSE IS HAD TO THE
BALLOTS THEMSELVES IN OR
DER TO ASCERTAIN HOW THE
ELECTORS ACTUALLY VOTED,
and it is well settled that in an cleo
tion contest, the ballots themselves
constitute the HIGHEST AND BEST
EVIDENCE OF THE WILL OF THE
ELECTORS, provided they have been
duly preserved and protected from
unauthorized intermeddling or tam
pering."
Our Supreme Court did not have
to invent a rule of law to 90 behind
the return of inspectors and examine
the ballots. 1t is the law of every
state where the question has been de-
termined at ALL
1t is provided by our primary law
that the ballots shall be preserved and
safely kept by the Supervisor of Reg
lStration after every primary election.
The law makers of this State certain
ly intended that these ballots should
he preserved for some useful purpose.
If these ballots could not be examined
to ascertain the true will of the cleo
tors voting in the election, it is in
conceivable to US that there could be
any purpose in the law which REQUIRES
their safe keeping and preservation.
In addition to what | have said IN
on the subject, I cannot refrain from
quoting from the case of Tebbe VS..
Smith, 1OS Cal. 1O1; 30 L. R. A. 673;
AZ Am. State Renorts 6S; 41st Pacific
RenOrt Asa, the following:
"THE BALLOTS ARE THE BEST
EVIDENCE OF THE MANNER IN
WHICH THE ELECTORS HAVE
VOTED, BEING SILENT WIT
NESSES, WHICH CAN NEITHER
ERR NOR LIE"
Everyone knows that where the
inspectors of election. through error
or mistake, have failed to properly
count and tabulate the first and sec
end choice votes for the office of Gov
ernor, that the return as made by
them must necessarily do Injustice to
the candidate and the electors who
voted in the election, and it is neces-
Sary IN order to correct such improper
and mistaken returns, that the ballots
which can neither err nor lie. be re-
counted, recalled, re-tabulated and
correct and accurate returns thereof
made. This is simple justice. 1t is
the only way to ascertain the truth.
1t IS the only way to do right by the
candidates and the electors and that is
all that any true Democrat wants. He
who seeks to prevent the truth being
known and justice done, is not entitled
to call himself a democrat, and is
worthy of no office in the gift of the
people.
Mr.. Cats has resorted to every
method known to the law to prevent
a recount and rehabilitation of the
votes. Does that look honest? Is
he afraid of those "silent witnesses,
which can neither lie nor err" and
which constitute the only real evil
dence as to the manner in which the
electors have voted? 1t looks that
way.
New don't be led astrov Mr.. Uric,
by that saying which denies the right