USA > Rhode Island > Rhode Island : three centuries of democracy, Vol. II > Part 11
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100
ELECTIONS IN GRAND COMMITTEE-The grand committee chose Herbert W. Ladd as Governor, and with him the Republican candidates for other general officers, except Attorney General. The Prohibition candidates for general officers in 1890 polled votes enough to pre- vent the Democratic candidates, who had pluralities, from attaining the majorities necessary for election. The Democrats controlled the grand committee and elected their state ticket. Again in 1891 the Prohibition party prevented a popular election ; this year the Republicans controlled the grand committee and elected ex-Governor Ladd as Governor and their candi-
*Held constitutional, in re the Ballot Law, 16 R. I. 766.
+The mark must be a cross, placed to the right of the name but not necessarily within the square. In re Vote Marks, 17 R. I. 812. And see In re the Ballot marks, 18 R. I. 822.
State vs. Kearns, 17 R. I. 391; State vs. Smith 17 R. I. 415. And see State vs. Collins, 16 R. I. 412 ; Murphy vs. Moses, 18 R. I. 100.
** See report of committee in Pawtucket election, Assembly Reports, 1894. §In re the Ballot Marks. 18 R. I. 822.
661
IDEALS AND STATE POLITICS
dates for general officers. The election in the presidential year, 1892, was closely contested ; in 1892, the state and national elections were six months apart, and state and national issues were more accurately distinguished than under circumstances in which both occur at the same time, and a single ballot is used for both. In the largest vote polled up to that year, 54,679, D. Russell Brown, Republican, had a majority of 243. In the national election in November, 53,196 ballots were cast, and Benjamin Harrison had a majority of only 754. The figures given for Governor Brown's election are those reported by a majority of the committee of the grand committee appointed to count the ballots cast in the state election. The reports of majority and minority reveal that the ballots actually were not counted. The majority of the committee refused to accede to the request of the minority that an actual count should be made; instead the committee followed the , practice established by usage, of tabulating the returns made by election officers. The grand committee rejected a motion to substitute the minority for the majority report, sixty-four to thirty-seven, thus confirming the majority of the committee in refusal to count, and elected the Republican candidates for Attorney General and General Treasurer, neither of whom had a majority of the popular vote. Then came the complete failure of the election laws in 1893.
THE FAILURE OF ELECTION MACHINERY IN 1893-The newspapers of the day following the state elections of 1893 reported "no election." On the face of the returns received from polling places it appeared that David S. Baker, the Democratic candidate for Governor, had a plurality of 183 votes over Governor Brown, who was a candidate for reelection. The Demo- cratic candidates for Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General also had pluralities; the Republican candidates for Secretary of State and General Treasurer appeared to have majori- ties. The first returns indicated also that the Republicans would control the Senate, nineteen to thirteen, with four seats to be filled by second elections. For the House of Representatives, twenty-one Republicans and twenty-five Democrats had been elected, but twenty-six seats remained to be filled because of failure to elect. Later returns gave the Republicans one addi- tional Senator and three Representatives; and the Democrats three Representatives. The grand committee, to which the election of general officers would fall, was Republican forty- four, Democrat forty-one, with twenty-three places doubtful.
In the anxious days that followed, while by-elections were being conducted, the situa- tion tended to become more tense, as it appeared that the stage was being set for a grand committee probably equally divided betwixt Democrats and Republicans, with the exception of the Lieutenant Governor, Republican, who was a member. Eventually the returns from by-elections made the grand committee Republican sixty, counting the Lieutenant Governor ; Democrat fifty-nine. In the General Assembly elected in 1892, which was still dragging out the unfinished January session of 1893, Ellery H. Wilson proposed the Rhode Island counterpart of the federal Electoral Commission law of 1876; the Wilson law as passed provided that the initial roll of members of each house of the General Assembly should be made up by the Secretary of State from certificates of election filed with him, and that the houses after meeting and qualifying by taking the oath of membership should meet imme- diately in grand committee and count the vote for general officers. This procedure, if fol- lowed, probably would have given control of the grand committee to the Republicans; it was not followed. Instead the House of Representatives, controlled by Democrats, after electing Franklin P. Owen as Speaker, asserted its own right under the Constitution, article IV, sec- tion 6, as "the judge of the elections and qualifications of its members," and unseated two Republicans. The House then sent an invitation to the Senate to join it in grand committee to count the votes cast for general officers and to elect general officers in case of a failure to elect by the electors. The Senate declined the invitation, because, "since the organization of the House that body, to the knowledge of the members of the Senate, had unseated certain of its members, and seated a person not elected, in violation of law and in defiance of the Constitu-
662
RHODE ISLAND-THREE CENTURIES OF DEMOCRACY
tion of the state, thereby changing the character of the grand committee, and that therefore the House as at present constituted is not the body with which the Constitution contemplates that the Senate should meet for the purpose named in the resolution." The Senate voted to adjourn to meet at the State House in Providence on the last Tuesday in January, and transmitted this vote to the House. On the following day the Senate passed another resolution of adjourn- ment, "owing to irreconcilable differences between it and the House of Representatives as to the time and place of adjournment," and certified the disagreement to the Governor.
ASSEMBLY PROROGUED-The House ignored both resolutions of adjournment, and the Governor prorogued the General Assembly under the provisions of article VII, section 6, of the Constitution, which reads: "In case of disagreement between the two houses of the General Assembly respecting the time or place of adjournment, certified to him by either, he may adjourn them. . . The votes cast in the popular election of 1893 were not counted; the State Manual carries this commentary : "Owing to a disagreement between the two houses of the General Assembly the ballots for state officers were not counted, and the state officers elected in 1892 held over."
The reasoning by which the House reached its extraordinary decision to deprive two members of their seats merits attention. Of these, William Hoxsie had been elected as Senator from Westerly, but had not filed his certification of election. The Westerly situation was complicated. For Hoxsie's seat in the House no successor had been elected, and as no second election was ordered Hoxsie planned to hold over in the House, and by not qualifying for the Senate permit the Senator elected from Westerly in 1892 to hold over. This would assure a full delegation from Westerly. The House of Representatives refused to permit him to sit in the House, for the reason that he had been elected as Senator. If nothing more than unseating Hoxsie had occurred the grand committee would be tied, fifty-nine to fifty-nine, with the casting vote in the possession of Governor Brown. He might not have chosen to vote for himself, in view of the fact that on the face of the returns he had polled a smaller vote than his Democratic opponent. He did take effective measures, nevertheless, to assure his possession of the office of Governor for another year, by appeal to the Supreme Court and by proroguing the General Assembly.
The second Republican unseated by the House was John B. Landers, who had been returned as elected in Jamestown. It appeared that the election officer had rejected six bal- lots claimed for his Democratic opponent, Orlando Smith, and that the six ballots, if counted for Smith, would assure the latter a majority. On the official ballot used in the election the name of Landers preceded that of Smith in alphabetical order. On the six disputed ballots the electors had made crosses to the right of Smith's name, but below the printed line, so that the crosses actually fell into the space opposite the blank line on the ballot left for writing in the name of a candidate not nominated.
Governor Brown asked the Supreme Court for an opinion, and the Court ruled* that the ballots could not be counted for Smith. Democratic comment upon the decision was very bitter at the time, because no argument had been heard by the court, and because in an English case, under similar circumstances, the court had ruled that the elector's intention had been indicated, and that such ballots could be counted.
The Senator elected from North Smithfield died before the meeting of the General Assembly, and the Supreme Court, on request from the Governor for an opinion, ruled that as the death occurred when the General Assembly was not in session, the town clerk had a right to call an election to fill the vacancy .; In South Kingstown, after failure to elect Senator and Representative, the town council ordered a new election, which also failed. The town council did not order a third election, although the special statute applying to the town appar-
*In re the Ballot Marks, 18 R. I. 822. And see 17 R. I. 812. tIn re the North Smithfield Election, 18 R. I. 817.
4
ADRUG
HIGH STREET, LOOKING WEST, WESTERLY
m
MEMORIN ACE PUBLIC L'IN
PUBLIC LIBRARY, WESTERLY
663
IDEALS AND STATE POLITICS
ently required the ordering of repeated elections at intervals of not exceeding ten days. On an application for a writ of mandamus to compel the town council to order a third election, the Supreme Court ordered the writ issued, and the town council complied with the order .¿ In another case at the time, brought under the majority election law, the court held that ballots cast for a candidate who was legally disqualified for office could not be rejected as void, thus reducing the number of ballots cast .** Had it been permitted to disregard the votes, Isaac Gill had been elected as councilman.
The House of Representatives asked the Supreme Court for its opinion of the legality of adjournment of the General Assembly by the Governor. The court answered first,tt that, assuming that the Governor had prorogued the General Assembly before the resolution ask- ing for an opinion had been passed, it was under no obligation to take notice of the resolution because it had not been "passed by the House of Representatives." The court, waiving the question as to the legality of the resolution, because of "the gravity of the situation . and the importance of the principles involved" assumed the right and duty to answer: (I) That circumstances, such as "a palpable violation of the Constitution by the expulsion of members contrary to its provisions, whereby the character of the grand committee is changed," might warrant the Senate in its vote to adjourn for more than two days before proceeding to the imperative duty of counting the vote; (2) that the determination of the fact of a disagree- ment as to the time and place of adjournment rested with the Governor exclusively and was not subject to review by the court; (3) that the Governor had the power to prorogue the Assembly without restriction as to the condition of business pending before the Assembly, he and not the court having the decision. At the January session, 1894, the House returned to the Senate "unread" the annual message of the hold-over Governor, on the ground that the House was under no obligation to receive a message which the Governor was neither required nor authorized to send to the General Assembly.
At the same session of the Assembly, a committee of the House that investigated the election in Pawtucket in 1893 reported that enough electors to change the result of the elec- tion had appeared at a polling place with a printed list of candidates for the Assembly and had requested assistance of a supervisor in marking ballots, and that the warden without ques- tion as to ability to read had assigned the elector in each instance to one certain supervisor. The committee reported a resolution censuring a Representative from Pawtucket whose son had distributed the printed slips.
PLURALITY ELECTION BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT-Meanwhile, on November 28, 1893, the people approved, 26,703-3331, an amendment to the Constitution providing for plurality elections, as follows: "In all elections held by the people for state, city, town, ward or district officers, the person or candidate receiving the largest number of votes cast shall be declared elected." In the spring of 1894 the people reelected D. Russell Brown as Governor by 6507 plurality and 1725 majority over David S. Baker, his opponent in the election of 1893. For the time being the challenge of the Democratic party was ineffective in face of Republican pluralities averaging 10,000. The Democratic vote receded from the 25,433 cast for William T. C. Wardwell in 1892, the unofficial vote of 22,000 for David S. Baker in 1893, and the vote of 22,650 for Baker in 1894 to an average of barely 15,000. The change in leadership in national politics in 1896 affected seriously the coherence of the Democratic party in Rhode Island. Some men who left the party in the campaign on the issue of free silver coinage in 1896 never returned. To ease the consciences of some who could not support the free silver policy of the party, and who would not vote for a Republican for President, the gold wing of the Democratic party organized as the National Democratic party and nominated
#State vs. Town Council of South Kingstown, 18 R. I. 258.
** Gill vs. Mayor of Pawtucket, 18 R. I. 281.
ttIn re the Legislative Adjournment, 18 R. I. 824.
664
RHODE ISLAND-THREE CENTURIES OF DEMOCRACY
candidates for President and Vice-President. The General Assembly directed the Secretary of State to place the names of the National Democratic candidates for presidential electors on the official ballot.
ELECTION REFORMS-The refusal of the majority in grand committee in 1892 to order an actual counting of the ballots cast in the election of general officers, instead of following the practice of merely tabulating and adding returns made by wardens, and the palpably care- less way in which bundles of ballots were wrapped up by election officers for delivery to the Secretary of State, precipitated public discussion of the desirability of revising election laws and procedure. The committee which in 1893 counted the ballots cast in a by-election of Congressmen directed attention in its report to the facts that bundles of ballots had not been properly sealed in the first instance, and that several packages had been broken open. Papers that should not have been included with the ballots had been wrapped in the packages, and the ballots indicated improper handling by election officers, which would have made it difficult, if not impossible, to determine eventually, had it been necessary, whether the ballot laws had been complied with or not. The Assembly, in 1893, enacted legislation (I) requiring careful and complete sealing of bundles of ballots; (2) establishing a penalty for refusal by an elec- tion officer to receive the ballot of a legally qualified elector offering to vote, and (3) estab- lishing a penalty for illegal voting. Governor Brown, in 1893, recommended the appointment of a non-partisan returning board to count the ballots and thus to exercise for the grand com- mittee a function which the latter did not care to exercise.
The first movement in the direction of a comprehensive reorganization of the election system was the creation of a board of canvassers and registration for Providence in 1895, which was made in the following years a counting and returning board for certain municipal officers. For the state a bi-partisan returning board was created in 1901, with authority first to count the ballots cast in presidential and congressional elections, in state elections of general officers, and on questions submitted to the referendum. For the time being the counting of ballots cast for Assemblymen was left to town officers, the ballots to be delivered to the return- ing board and kept sealed in original packages unless a recount was requested. Eventually the returning board counted all ballots cast in state elections, and its certificates of election were used by the Secretary of State in making up the preliminary roll of members of Senate and House.
The counting by the returning board was and is public, with provision for the presence of candidates or their representatives, and, on the counting of ballots carrying votes on amend- ments to the Constitution, representatives of both major parties. The statute of 1901, regu- lated also the manner of conducting elections, required the use of check lists of voters and the checking of names as votes were cast, and the use of locked ballot boxes. In its general provisions and in most details the legislation was excellent; in practice its effectiveness in making an election an accurate expression of the will and the majority depended altogether upon the honesty of election officers. The Australian secret ballot first used in Rhode Island, by listing candidates alphabetically in groups determined by the office sought, made it neces- sary for the elector, pencil in hand, to proceed from group to group and make a selection in each. Modern educators have found out in their attempts to measure "intelligence" how serious a task checking, cancelling or filling blanks imposes upon most persons. The number of defective ballots cast in several elections, even after the law had been in operation long enough to assume familiarity, reached nearly ten per cent. of the total cast. Scant comfort could be found in the fact that in most instances the rejection of defective ballots was shared in its effect by both major parties and rarely affected the result of an election; occasionally it did. Thus, in the election of 1893, the rejection of six ballots as defective returned a Repub- lican instead of a Democrat to the House of Representatives from Jamestown; the House majority, Democratic, undertook to repair the "error" by unseating the Republican and sub-
665
IDEALS AND STATE POLITICS
stituting for him his Democratic opponent, thus precipitating the situation that enabled Gov- ernor Brown to hold over. Governor Brown, in 1893, recommended a simpler form of bal- lot; other Governors made similar recommendations.
The use of voting machines, alleged to simplify the process of voting, and to return an accurate count of the vote immediately after the close of the polls, was suggested. In an advisory opinion the Supreme Court ruled* that the General Assembly may enact a valid law authorizing a municipality to use the McTammany voting machine in elections therein, assum- ing that provision will be made to accommodate voters who wish to vote for persons other than those named on the official ballot. Justice Rogers dissented, holding that "a voter on this machine has no knowledge through his senses that he had accomplished a result." The use of voting machines was authorized by general law in 1900, and ten towns experimented with the new type of voting. Cumberland found the machines not entirely satisfactory and wished to return to paper ballots. The Supreme Court, in an advisory opinion, ruled that the introduction of voting machines, inhibited a return to paper balloting .; The General Assem- bly thereupon, in 1901, authorized towns to discontinue use of voting machines. Eventually all towns returned to paper ballots, although the law permitting use of voting machines con- tinued in the statute book until it was omitted from the revision of the General Laws, 1923.
A commission appointed for the purpose of devising a simpler form of ballot reported a modified type of Australian ballot with all the candidates for each party arranged in a single column in such manner that an elector choosing to cast a straight party ballot for all candi- dates might do so by placing one cross in a circle at the top of the column. The simplified ballot was adopted in 1905. An elector wishing to select candidates for other than party rea- sons might ignore the circle and indicate choices by crosses placed to the right of the names of his candidates. An elector choosing to vote for several but not all of the candidates of a party might use the circle, cancel names not voted for and indicate choices by crosses. In the ballot law as practically perfected in 1905, it was declared that generally ballots should not be declared defective for failure to accomplish the indication of a choice of any particular candi- date; and that only ballots so marked as to render identification possible should be rejected altogether. Secret ballot laws after 1889 had required the use of printed ballots furnished by the Secretary of State for state elections, and by towns for town elections in the instance of towns that accepted the provisions of the secret ballot law; if and when ballots were not pro- vided, electors might "use any ballots and provide themselves therewith."} The printing of ballots necessarily implied filing lists of candidates with the Secretary of State or other officer charged with the duty of providing ballots; it became necessary, therefore, to determine the legality of nominations as between candidates claiming party designations.
PRIMARY REFORM-It was inevitable that the state should surround the caucus or primary election with the protection of law. A beginning had been made in Providence under the leadership of William Carroll, who as chairman of the Democratic city committee, drafted rules for conducting Democratic caucuses, including the use of check lists, locked ballot boxes, designation of caucus officers, and the counting of ballots after the caucus had been kept open for specified hours to assure an opportunity for participation of so many of the party mem- bers as wished to vote. The substitution of an entirely orderly procedure in Democratic caucuses for the haphazard, catch-as-catch-can methods that sometimes had carried internal quarrels to disaster at the polls was recognized as a significant achievement, and had a whole- some effect in stabilizing the party, which had much to do with its sustained strength after 1888. The General Assembly enacted a caucus law for Providence and Pawtucket in 1899, and later extended its provisions first to Newport, and then to other parts of Rhode Island.
*In re Voting Machines, 19 R. I. 789.
+Re McTammany Voting Machines, 23 R. I. 630.
#In re Hammond, 24 R. I. 269.
666
RHODE ISLAND-THREE CENTURIES OF DEMOCRACY
In principle the caucus act recognizes party regularity and the organized party committees in cities, towns, wards and districts. To assure protection against invasion of caucuses, lists of party members may be filed. Participants in a party caucus are barred from voting in the caucus of any other party preceding the next election.§ Check lists, ballot boxes, and other necessary equipment are provided by public authority; and recount of ballots may be made by public officers upon reasonable request. Thus the primary election from which is derived the list of candidates for official election ballots is safeguarded; there are some who protest that the protection extends to regulation by public authority of a function which in its exem- plification by the citizen should be so absolutely without restriction or suggestion as to assure unhampered action, particularly when it is the purpose of the citizen to accomplish at the polls the revolution by removal of officers which the ballot box is intended to make possible. There has been complaint also that the short period of time, two or three evening hours, within which caucuses are conducted, and the slow rate of voting when emphasis is placed upon the identification of voters, lend themselves to preemption of caucus rights by early com- ers, to the exclusion of those who appear later. The consequence in some instances has been the formation of a long queue in front of the polling place hours before the opening of the caucus; and, on occasion, resort to dilatory tactics by the faction that appeared to have the advantage in early voting. Remedy is promised in caucus legislation enacted at the ses- sion of 1930, and in the reduction of the size of voting districts in the process of a new apportionment.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.