The Alaska daily empire., 1917-02-28
GRIGSBY H0LDS AUSTRALIAN La" TO BE MANDATORY
f Opinion Is Followed SuIzer VIII Probably Be the Delegate
 to Congress.
IContInued from Page Onel

llONJnueC rom tdGt OAe'
 corrupt schemes Of designing men, brought about the election, reform known Hs the Australian ballot SyS- tenn. Elections prior Co it were held by am open ticket system, under which secrecy was almost it not quite iW- possible. and dependent or corrupt Not- CTS were equally at the mercy and un- der the control of those who would use them for corrupt ends
 The court of appeals ot New York, m the case ut People V, Board oi tuuny Cunvasscrs, l2g x. Y. 355, 29 N. E. 52n II I. R. A.. GGi says.
 "Ne know that the principal mischic. which thC statute was intended Co sup press was the bribery Ot voters at olCc- tiors. which had become an intolcrn- b!e evil, and this was to DC accom- plishcd by SO framing thc law as Co en- able if not compel, the voter Co oNer- else his privilege iu absolute SecTe-
 The supreme court oi Michigan in tho case of Detroit y Rush; s2 Mich.
 "The secrecy Of the ballot is the great safeguard Co tho purity ot cleo tlous The vote by ballot implies soc crecy This secrecy should not be confined tp che tiEc oC dypositinE the ballot. lt should accompany the voter thruuEh all the steps provided for t1" preparation Ot his ballot. Only iu this
 
 tiou. Improper influences. rgpr'Ach; 1n" auim0dvcvEiDu W hen all Knowledge 0f how hy voted ia the voters own se- Crgt, unless he CnunsuEy Co ulEN.En lt. honest vote will very uniformly br tAe result
 The supreme court of appeals Of Nir- ginIg IU tE" ease nI Pearson N- l6HuE.- wick County. 9l Va. S22. 2l S. E. ts5.
 "Thc object fs to relieve thc votor from every IUiuuuv" iuim'ruI Co a. Tree and deliberate oNarois" uG tho right ui suffrage. Co trnu Fem from a. s"l.c.t- tiuu and annoyance. and Go leave nIm perfectly free agent Co vote HE Co him seems best Tines. provisions seem .n br u.t only reasonable, huf wei. HaHp'- ei l9 secure th" end Iu view, so lgr ". the vote. Is concerned who is uH'. In prepare ulE own bulInl. V. Eu.. Co Che Judges. he receives an u.N.HI bale lut printed by authority uI t"H state. upon which la -nH'N every ".urg tH n" filed and every ..uf.Gr.. for thH. uI- c0rj1unu wi.H thr r.UWrgwauL of iu" law. and nu IutIr"H EH 90 booth where he ls cgr.Hluaa or Hna secluded from au tho world. Nu sv. can s.. Gm and cnu anu~aael hlms and, with ..a#. gu- Ni.urE.r.E. he prepare. H'a ballot. .N.H# and delivers tr 70 tH. .rHr. who, In his presence, places it Lr .ne ballot hnE Aa' t'""'.t .......... N. -.. H.H is Co secure tnn independence nI iIr voter by socIudur him within am i#o- lated bocth. surrounded by 30 neutral zone. within which mono m1y enter save those charged with conducting
 Thus ir is egan that tho general scheme of thc system Is l." secure urv Independence" of che voter by rQurng him to unst his vote lu secret.
 OF THE SYSTEM AND IS THE ONE ELEMENT AND CONDITION WHICH. PARAMOUNT ITO ALL OTHERS. CANNOT EE DESTROYED WITHOUT TENDED AND RE-ESTAELISWNG THE EVILS TT WAS DESIGNED TO CORRECT. STATUTES WHICH MAKE. EVEN INCIDENTALLY. FOR ITS PRESERVATION AND lNNIOLA- BILITY ARE SELDOM DIRECTORY. AND WITHOUT ENCE PTION, WHERE THE LANGUAGE WILL AD- MT OF IT. ARE HELD TO BE MAN DATORY"
 Tn the Twlland vs. Noble. l2S x. w.. 292. the court disapprOvCs Of tho opin- ion in the HOrscfull case, and coudcnscs what seems Co be the weight Of author ity. as follows:
 What seems to us Co be the true rule. is laid down iu the following from the opinion Of the court in the case or Ferry NSs ttdGhileNr tN .Ns M toos
 "Thp statute under consideration iS then not in terms mandatory. but it is we'll settled that thc employment Of CNprags words is not always necessary Co give it that character; Where the aim and purpose of the lawmalSinE power would be plainly defeated it the command to do the thing in a partic- ular manner did not imply an luhibi- ton to do it in any other no doubt can be maintained 1h Co the mandatory character of the statute.' g Am. x Eng Enc, of Law, pages 4J3, 45i, and cases cited.
 The proper test for distinguishing mandatory from directory provisions ot the election laws is well stated by the Weinberg. 30 N. F. T9O, as follows:
 "If a statute expressly declares any particular act to be essential to the validity of m election, or or that it's omission shall render the election void, the courts whose duty it is to enforce the law as they find it. must so hold, whether the particular act in question goes to the merits or affects the result of the election or not; for such a stat ute is mandatory and the court cannot enter into the question of its policy; on the other hand, if a statute simply provides that certain things shall be done within particular time or m particular manner. and does not de- clare that their performance shall be essential to the validity of an election, THEY WILL BE REGARDED AS MANDATORY IF THEY AFFECT THE MERITS OF THE ELECTION, AND AS DIRECTORY ONLY IF THEY DO NOT AFFECT ITS MERITS.
 We also approve the following from the case of Jones ys. State CN rel Will son 55 N. D. 229
 ".liI provisions Of the election law are