Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1923-01-13
Democrat Elected
(Continued from Pauo one)

Continued from Page one)
cording to the decision of Chief JUS
tice Cornish.
In discussing group three where 16
ballots are in dispute, Justice Corn
ish says:
mo cross in either party square.
but crosses made against individual
names. mostly in the Republican COL
umn. Woodside's name erased. Froth-
ingham's name written in the blank
space below Woodside's and a cross
placed in the square opposite Froth-
ingham's name so written in Froth-
ingham's name not crossed in the
Democratic column.
This raises novel question of
law. The respondent contends that
these ballots should be rejected:
that they cannot be counted for
rockingham because his name was
printed on the ballot in another
party column, and the only way in
which Republican voter could vote
for rockingham would be by eras-
ing Woodside's name in the Republic
can column and placing a cross
against Frothingham's name in the
Democratic column.
1.-THE statute provides two methods
Of voting. first the group method by
placing a cross in the party square
and thereby including the names Of
all the candidates Of that party
printed below in the party column.
unless some of them are erased;
second, the voter may omit the cross
in the party square and then the
words are: land place a cross in the
blank square at the right of the
name of each candidate he wishes to
vote for" p. l.. 1917. CHI. 306.
In this group 3. the voters employ
ed the individual method and they
placed a cross against the names
they wished to vote for, including
the name of rockingham written in
under Woodside's.
But the respondent contends that
the necessity of crossing the printed
name if 1t appears in another column
is to be inferred from the next SEN
tence of the same section which is:
of the voter wishes to vote for a
candidate whose name is not on the
ballot he may write the name under
the name Of the candidate erased"
It is argued from this that the name
can only be written in when it does
not appear in another column. If
this is the true construction of Chap
ter 800, or If there is doubt as to its
true Interpretation, that doubt is
cleared by the provisions OF Chapter
296 of the Public Laws Of 1917. ap-
proved on the same date as Chapter
306, April Z. 1917, and therefore the
two statutes are to be constructed
together.
Chapter 2e6, amending the provis-
ion as to the preparation of ballots,
after reenacting the clause as to the
blank space below the names 'in
which the voter may write the name
of any underlined person for whom
he desires to vote as a candidate for
such Office" adds these significant
words which had not appeared be-
fore: "At the right of each name
fore: "At the right of each name and
at the right of the blank space above
provided for there shall be left a.
blank square in which the voter may
make a mark" For what purpose is
the voter allowed to place his cross in
this blank unless his ballot so mark
ed is to be counted? The ballot in
it's amended form is an express in
vitation to insert any name below
the name of the candidate erased
and to cross it after 1t is written in.
That invitation was accepted by the
voters in this group under considera-
ton.
These two statutes SO construed
give to the voter under such circum-
stances the option either of crossing
the name in another party column. or
of writing it in the blank space below
the erased name and crossing 1t.
- HA ards
and usual Interpretation of the
LANGUAGE.
''True, one act Is numbered 296, and
the other bears a later number. 306
But that Is immaterial. The num-
bering of legislative statutes is
ministerial and not a legislative act,
and. nothing appearing to the con-
trary. statutes approved on the same
day are presumed to have been ap-
proved contemporaneously. Harring-
ton v. Harrington. SO vt. GAO; Stuart
v. Chapman. 104 Maine, II.
"Nor does the fact that Chapter
296 took effect in ninety days after
adjournment, and Chapter 306 by it's
terms not until January 1, 1918, af-
feet the situation The reasoning of
the Court in Stuart v. Chapman,
supra, applies here with equal force.
1t is absurd to suppose that the
Legislature intended the amendment
provided for in Chapter 296 to have
effect only from July 6. 1917, to
January 1. 1918, and then to be re-
pealed instantcr Ry Chapter 500, APP
proved on the SAME day. It would
have been simpler. IL that was their
intention, to withdraw the bill which
afterwards was numbered 29e, and
mass the bill which became CHAPTER
306, especially as no State election
INTERVIEWED.
Nor is there any force in the
clause in Chapter 500, repeating acts
and parts of acts inconsistent there
with. Even IL this, could apply to a
bill approved on the same day. there
WAS no Inconsistency hafNeen fheae