Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1853-11-17


tnwn of Wells, in Rutland County, rec emily
decided by the House Of Representatives, at
Montpelier. is especially commended 10 the
notice Of the public.
thew ellis contested Election.
The decision Of tins case made by the
House Of Representatives. IS remarkable. both
In itself, and as a specimen and illustration Of
what is TO be expected from the SO called Dem
ocratc party IN Vermont and is worthy Of the
serious attention Of our citizens. The facts in
the case, appearing from the testimony, are as
follows.
The candidates were David B. Lewis wing,
and Nathan Francis oco and the board OF
civil authority that counted the votes were with
one exception, in favor OF Francis, fact which
wil be seen 20 be Important ~ ns behring's
THE votes were counted go the seat of pew
n the meeting h01sa aHd the first count made
~ for Fnucis and rs ior Lewis, not counting
double vote sometimes called the long u0te,
which had Frncs name written twice on tie
same line aud Sas torn nearly pa two between
he two nlmes. On She second count the result
was agreed Co. except That one OF the board, Mr.
HuIett a friend cd Lewis made rs tor Lewis
aud II was then generally agreed that Francis
was elected and the result was circulated some
what aIiong the by-staNders. some of the board
then got up from counting, aud some OF them
turned round from the votes, but had not left the
pew. when HuIett immediate insisted upon
smother count. and then the board Immediately
proceeded 10 count the third ume lluleu began
10 count the votes over again, q very soon found
a vote Tor Lewis 10 the FIancis pile and showed
IL TO the other members Of the board who then
counted II for Lewis, and after careful sorting
snd counting It appeared that there were 90 for
Lewis and ~ tor Francis, including the long or
double vote for Francis. be votes were then
carefully counted The fourth tune with the same
result and this was found TO ugree with the check
list, which had 49, names, aud then Lewis was
declared elected, no objection being made by any
Of the board. There was no testimony tending
TO show ans fraud or unfiirness IN the counting,
and OIL the witnesses coucuued that everything
appeared 10 be far aud honest.
On the part of Francis, II WAS proved that one
MINOR voted and one Of tie board testified hat
tue vote with one other vote, was put upon the pile
after the box was turned and that he saw II was
for Lewis and two other witnesses gave evidence
tending 10 show that 1t was not put M the box
bat on The pile. On the other hand, one Of the
two voters swore that his vote was put into the
box and the constable and one Of the board
sworethat the vote Of the MINOR was put into the
box. Ii the vote wss put into the box, OF course
there was no proof for ,rhom tue vote was given,
The COMMITTEES on Elections, a majority OF whom
were aganst The Whgs, decided that the vote
was for Lewis. But Il Is insisted that there
was sufficient balance Of proof that the vote
was pot into the box. bls was the only Illegal
vote that was claimed TO have been gwen Tor
LeWls.
Some witnesses swore that they went into the
meeting -house the neri morning and counted
Francis votes and made ~, and found one for
han on the floor under the seat They admitted,
however, that there were other votes on the floor
Of the pew.
ON the part Of Lewis, 1t was proved and found
to be the fact by the committee, that one voter
during the ballutlng offered two votes, folded to-
gethcr, TO the constable, who voted for Francis,
though Wing, and son-ln-law Of Lewis and
the constable, suppoSiag, as he testified, that IL
was a mistake, handed back one Of the votes,
which was Tor Francis, and put the other IN the
box
1t was also proved that one other minor voted
VINO had since gone out Of the State 10 avoid
prosecution and that he declared 20 sundry per
sons that be voted for Francis. The committee
decided thai his d, srqtions were NOT sufficient
proof Mr.. Lewis took The deposition OF another
minor, who refused io testify az 10 his age, on
the ground that he nllit animate hmsclL and
also as TO whom Ae voted ior "a lhe ground Of
beng privileged 90 reiise 90 disclose. AIR.
Lewis could not find any ole that sur his vote,
and therefore failed m proving that he voted for
francis though no one doubted the fact.
The committee reported that Francis received
e0 votes aud Lewis 70, counting the double votes
Tor Francis, and throwing out the vote of the mi
nor for Lewis and following the first two counts
The statute Comp. Stat, chap. !, sec. 49, en-
acts, that the presiding officer shall examine the
ballot offered 80 far as % discover whether there
De more than one, aud if there be more then one
shall be the duty Of such presiding officer to
make Il known 10 the meeting aud reloctihe same,
sld no vote shall be afterwards received from such
person at SAID meeting"
The meaning and purpose of this statue is
very obvious that Is, It declares peremptorly,
ana to prevent all chance for fraud by double
voting, that the votes shall not be counted at GH
N any eusnt 1t would of course be next to lnl-
Possible to prone the guilty intent; and the law
was enacted for the yer, purpose Of" taking the
s"hg out Of temptation" by preventing d voter
IRON playing the trick, and then, ifuot discover
Gu saying nothing about It, and If discovered,
protesting that It was an innocent mistake, which
could not be diSproped, il being negative. And
we believe that tins Is the first time that double
uailot has ever been counted IN Vermont, since
.ne law was enacted Who is to decide whether
. we double voting was intended or not Is the
u'4' 10 be had during the ballOting? And yet
Tue committee and the House decided that be-
eause the constable supposed it was an innocent
mistake, land this was all the evidence there
was on the subject,) II might be counted. Verify,
4 lhe constable is Judge aud besides can rem
yer Judgments without evidence, merely Oh his
own s,aPpostions, it is a singular and important
o~ee The long vote was also counted, though
D'n most apart, and thus showing the intent 10
- 20 nave II torn quite apart in the handling and
S"uining OF the votes, and thus count two. This
e'Son Is an outrage on the law, and not only
"'S' out also on decent respect for the law. The