608 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS [Mar. 8,

Such a decision may have been correct under the
New York Statute, but is not au authority in the case
arising under our Act of 1890.

It is clearly to be seen that when the voter is
handed three ballots, two of which are identical in
internal and external appearance, and differ from the
third in the designation of the polling place on the
back thereof, that all who see a voter vote such third
ticket or ballot know how he votes and for whom he
votes, especially if they know that the variance oc-
curred on party's ticket "only " It was known that
such error occurred on the official ballot of the Re-
publican party "only, " and therefore, when a voter
after receiving three separate tickets on separate or
separable pieces of paper, retired to a voting booth,
selected one of the three, and handed it to the Judges
of Election, with the designation of place in full
view, and that designation was different from that on.
the other two ballots, it was apparent to all who saw
it—the bystanders, as well as the officers of election—
that he had voted the Republican ticket, and the
secrecy of the ballot was gone.

As the Court says in its opinion: "Now, it is per-
fectly plain, and it is not disputed that, by variance
in the numbering of the polling place, in the official
endorsement, these ballots in question were distin-
guishable from the ballots which were prepared,
given our and cast by the "supporters of other pol-
itical parties, " and "every ballot deposited was
marked, or could be identified as a Republican vote. "

Not so under the Maryland Statute.

It requires that the official ballot shall contain on
"one piece" of paper the tickets of "all" the political
parties, and thus makes them inseparable.

The change made in the designation of the polling
place, therefore, on "all" the ballots cast at this pre-
cinct could not and did not destroy the secrecy of the
ballot, by enabling any one to know or ascertain
from such change how any voter voted. In the New
York case, such change o variance was a distinguish-
ing mark, and the New York Statute "prohibits"
such ballots from being deposited in the box; while
in this case, under our law, the change was not a dis-