Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/634

 NOTES OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RECENT CASES COM PILED BY THE EDITORS OF THE NATIONAL REPORTER SYSTEM AND ANNOTATED BY SPECIALISTS IN THE SEVERAL SUBJECTS (Copies of the pamphlet Reporters containing full reports of any of these decisions may be secured from the West Pub lishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, at 35 cents each. In ordering, the title of the desired case should be given as well as the citation of volume and page of the Reporter in which it is printed.)

BALLOT.

(VOTING MACHINES) MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT. City of Detroit v. Board of Inspectors of Elec tion, 102 Northwestern Reporter, 1029, appears to be the first case which contains a direct de cision as to whether voting by machine is a vote by "ballot." The Michigan law provides that any city coun cil may authorize the use of voting machines, providing that all voting by machine shall be secret. The Constitution declares that all votes should be given by ballot, and the question pre sented is whether the statute is in conflict with the Constitution. In determining what consti tutes a vote by ballot the court declares that the question is not one of mere philology, and that the meaning of the words "by ballot" is not to be limited to the vehicle used in voting or the method of depositing votes, which was probably in the contemplation of the framers of the Con stitution. The real gist of the decision is con tained in the ensuing statement that the consti tutional provision is a declaration of state policy assuring to the elector a secret, as distinguished from an open or announced vote. Bouvier's definition of "voting by ballot" is quoted to show that secrecy is the essential part of this man ner of voting. Ex parte Arnold, 128 Mo. 260, 30 S. W. 769, is cited, and the statement therein that the expression "election by ballot" has been expounded and construed by the various courts of last resort, and with entire unanimity de clared to be a secret ballot, and that the essential principle of this manner of voting is that the elector may conceal from every person the name of the candidate for whom he votes, is quoted with approval. Williams v. Stein, 38 Ind. 90; Ritchie v. Richards, 14 Utah, 345, 7 Pac. 670; and Brisbin v. Cleary, 26 Minn. 107, i N. W. 825, are also referred to as supporting the same idea, In re Voting Machines, 19 R. I. 729, 36 Atl. 716, is referred to because the court considered the argument that the framers of the Constitution as individuals never had in mind such method of voting, and stated in answer that the question was not what limitations they might have had in mind by reason of the methods to which they were accustomed, but what the language of the Constitution means or might reasonably mean,

with reference to the matter under consideration. The Constitution of Massachusetts provides that representatives should be chosen by a written vote, and a divided court in opinion of the Jus tices, 178 Mass. 605, 60 N. E. 139, held that this authorized the use of voting machines. In this case it is said that no doubt the picture in the minds of those who used the words was that of a piece of paper with the names of the candidates voted for written upon it in manuscript, but that the thing which they meant to stop was oral or hand voting, and the benefits which they meant to secure were the greater certainty and perma nence of a material record of each voter's act and the relative privacy incident to doing that act in silence. The Michigan court concludes that as the whole ballot system is based upon the idea of secrecy, and as this result is as certainly ob tained by the use of voting machines as by the use of written or printed ballots, voting by ma chine is a "voting by ballot'1 within the mean ing of the Constitution. ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT. The same question was tubsequently brought before the Supreme Court of Illinois in the case of Lynch v. Malley, 74 Northeastern Reporter, 723. That court held that the constitution of the state, which provides that all votes shall be by ballot, does not render invalid Laws 1891, p. 178, pro viding for the use of voting machines. The court rests its decision upon the Michigan case above referred to, and also reviews the cases In re Vot ing Machines, R. I. 36 Atl. 716, and In re House Bill No. 1291, Mass. 60 N. E. 129. BILL QUIA TIMET. (APPREHENDED INSOL VENCY OP TORT FEASOR) TENNESSEE SUPREME COURTAn attempted extension of the scope and ap. plication of a bill quia iimet is denied judicial approbation in Slover v. Coal Creek Coal Co., 8a Southwestern Reporter, 1131. The complainants alleged that they were holders of an unliquidated claim for damages for a tort committed by de fendant which was a mining coq>oration. It was also alleged that other claims existed growing out of the same occurrence and that suits had been commenced thereon which would go to judgment