Seven Votes Decide an Office: The Ballots Are 'Indescribable'

The contested election case of William H. Moyer vs. Aaron T. Van De Vanter will be argued before the supreme court June 13, and W. R. Hay, of counsel for the respondent, has just completed his client's brief. It is exhaustive, discussing all the points of the famous contest before Judge Langley, and covering sixty-five pages of printed matter. When the case comes up it is thought argument for Van De Vanter will be made by Andrew F. Burleigh and E. C. Hughes.

In his brief Mr. Hay urges that under any construction that can be put on the law, whether strict or liberal, the Republican nominee will win. According to his statement, which has been placed before the public, Van De Vanter has a clear plurality, no matter how the ballots are counted.

There are four points advanced to demonstrate that the judgment of the superior court should be affirmed: (1) The contest proceeding should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction of respondent. (2) The statutes respecting the exercise of the elective franchise by the individual voter should be strictly construed, and the same held to be mandatory. (3) The trial court committed no error in counting as legal ballots to which the only objection was the absence of initials of an election officer. The rule of construction of statutes governing the conduct of election officers, in the absence of fraud, is liberal. (4) Under a liberal construction to determine the intention of the voter the trial court rightfully found Van De Vanter entitled to the office.

The authorities cited in the brief in support of respondent's position are numerous, particularly on the question of what constitutes a distinguishing mark. It is contended finally that if the supreme court should reverse the trial court and hold in favor of a strict construction, and decide to examine the ballots, justice cannot be done without the examination of all the ballots in dispute. The ballots are now in court as a part of the record. They are referred to as too numerous for full argument in a brief. The brief concludes: "Some of the ballots are indescribable. Should respondent be overruled in this, and also in his contention for a strict construction, and this court decides to review, he can only leave it to this honorable court to review the same by a personal inspection, as this court may deem just and right."

The official canvass gave Van De Vanter 4,417, Moyer 4,339, a plurality of 78 votes for Van De Vanter. The recount under the eye of the court changed these figures to Van De Vanter 4,380, Moyer 4,373, a plurality of 7 for Van De Vanter.