The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1917-07-20
FIERCE COUNTER ATTACKS
YGERMANS AVAIL NOTHING
MARION COUNTY REMAINS
THE "RONE-DRY" COLUMN

The supreme court Gays that ,he de-
cision Of the chancellor was based en-
tirely on the proposition of the form
of the ballots, which has been printed
in this paper, and with which the
readers of this paper and the voters
of the county are also familiar.
The opinion of the court contains
eleven typewriter pages and was
written by Chief Justice jefferson B.
Browne, and concurred in by Justices
Taylor, Shackletord, Whitfield and
Ellis.
1T appears that the courts have es-
tablished no rule which is generally
recognized by which il may be def
nitely determined when a provision
OF an election law is to be regarded
as mandatory and when merely di-
reCtOTy. or under what circumstances
a provision which is mandatory upon
the officials charged with the duty Of
arranging for and conducting elec
i
Inullifying an election, when the cleo
tors have freely exercised the right
of suffrage and there is no charge that
IF the law had been strictly complied
with the result would have been DIFF
lferent Republics regard the elective
franchise as sacred, and the courts
should not set aside an election be-
cause some official has not complied
with the law governing elections,
where he voter has done all in his
Ipower to cast his ballot honestly and
Iintelligently, unless fraud has been
perpetrated or corruption or coercion
practiced TO a degree to have affected
the result.
Our election laws like all others,
contain two classes of requirements
and prohibitions. Over one the elect
or can exercise no control; over the
other he can. He should be held 10
strict accounta bility for such things
as are within his control. but not for
those things which public officials are
lreQuired 20 do. A voter may sacri-
fee his right 10 have his ballot ac-
cepted and counted for wrongful or
Illegal acts on his part. but he is not
to be deprived of his constitutional
jrights by the neglect or wilful wrong
Of a public officer charged With the
duty of supplying him with the means
or the opportunity Of expressing his
choice The attack on this election
is purely technical as no fraud was
established. nor was it shown that a
Isingle voter was prevented from ex-
pressing his choice, or that had the
!ballots not been printed as they were
the result would have been different
The reasoning by which it is at
tempted to make section 210 apply to
and govern 219, and the effect, if it
does, is not sound. Section 210 is in
tended TO preserve the secrecy Of the
ballot. and TO prevent the use of any
ballot other than the secret Official
ballots printed and distributed by
certain designated officials, and the
command that mo ballot shall be re-
ceived or counted in any election TO
which this act applies, except it be
Iprovided as herein prescribed" unmis
takably refers TO the official ballot
which the voter is required to use. If
he attempt to use ballot other than
one provided or required by that Sec
tion it shall not be received or count
ed" The prohibition does not relate
TO the provisions of sections 21e and
220. The first fixes the obligation Of
the voter, and prohibits him from US.
ing any ballot not provided for his use
by the state: while sections 219 and
220 are instructions TO public officials.
To deprive an innocent person of his
rights because some public official
fails to do his duty, is abhorrent to
our sense Of right and justice, and we
will not give to a statute a construc-
ton which will produce that result
Having reached this conclusion, it is
unnecessary for Us to decide whether
the ballots provided for the voters
were alike or not. We will say
however that the word alike" is not
synonymous with Identical" a thing
is alike" another when it is similar
to, or resembles it; while identical
means exactly the same"
/ We cannot see how any one but a
blind man, or one who by reason of