The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1864-01-16
s8listella1>eous.
Contested Election.

ture upon the WATERFORD and Hollis contest
ed election case. The seat was given to Mr.
Usher, as we remarked some time ago il
would be. This places Mr.. Bradbury in the
position of contestant, which course will
compel showing up of the WATERFORD frauds
We notice in this connection that Mr.. But
Ter, Of North Berwick, was prompt and faith
full to explain to the House that he had had
twelve years experience as selcctman of his
town. Perhaps Mr.. B. could with profit to
the House explain why we'll known citizens
of his town were prevented from voting. He
would then be doing the State some service {:
The Speaker informed tho House that two
gentlemen, Henry A. Usher and Henry X.
Bradbury. presented papers which each claims
entities him prima facie to seat on the floor
from the District of Hollis and WATERFORD
He desired tho instructions Of tho House az
to which name should be entered upon tho
Roll, and for the information of the members
he would direct tho clerk to read both papers,
which having been done,
Mr.. Farwell of Rockland. said that he
knew nothing of tho classification of the
towns. nor the politics Of the two gentlemen.
Butas Judging from whatappeared to be the
case, he thought Mr.. Usher was entitled to
the seat. He therefore moved that his name
be placed upon the Roll of the House.
Mr.. Stone Of Kennebunk, thought that so
far as facts wero already presented to the
House, Mr.. Usher had tho proper credentials.
II Mr.. Bradbury was prepared to show that
this was not the fact, he would have an Op-
portunity to doso before the Committee on
Elections.
Mr.. Jelleson Of Biddeford. hoped that the
motion of the member from Rockand would
not prevail Tho certified copies Of the list
of votes cast in the towns Of Hollis and Wa
terboro, now before the Houso show that
Henry A. Usher received only four hundred
and eight votes in tho district, while Henry
X Bradbury received four hundred and fifty.
nine votes iu the district, giving Mr.. Brad.
bury clear majority of fifty one votes. The
papers signed by the Selectmen Of Hollis,
which they annexed to the certified copy Of
tho list Of votes, and which declared Mr..
Usher elected by the town Of Hollis alone,
rejecting the vote of WATERFORD and thereby
disfranchising that town, was no part of the
credentials proper to be considered by this
House at this time. constituting no part of
tho record or copy Of the record of the vote
Of tho towns referred to. and IL admitted
would have the effect to make the Selectmen
Judges Of the election OF the members Of this
House, instead of the House itself, as proyid.
Cd by the Constitution. That paper was
simply piece of evidence proper only to bo
submitted to the COMMITTEES on Elections
Mr.. Bradbury was prepared to show before
that COMMITTEES that the statement made IN
the paper referred to. differed widely from the
real facts in the case. Mr.. Bradbury also
held certificate signed by the Selectmen of
WATERFORD, OF the meeting OF that board af.
ter proper Notice to the Selectmen Of Hollis.
for comparison of the list of votes, at which
meeting the lattor town not only failed, but
sent written refusal to be present. and at
which meeting the list of votes cast in the
town of WATERFORD was duly examined, and
certified copies thereof delivered TO Mr.. Brad.
bury, but Mr.. Bradbury considered that Ger.
tifcate to be no part of the certified copies of
lists OF votes upon the examination OF which
this House is to determine the prina fdice
right Of one party or the other to seat in
this House, and he did not therefore annex It
to his credentials. The gentleman from
Rockland erred in the statement that Hollis
is tho elder town. #..
The acts of incorporation Of these towns
show Waterford to bc tho elder town. which
fact Is admitted In the paper annexed to the
certified copy of the list of votes Of the town
of Hollis presented by Mr.. Usher, consequent
ly WATERFORD had the right to give the no.
tice Of the time and place of meeting Tor the
purpose Of comparing votes. The truth WIS
that no tine or place had ever been estab.
lished by the Sclectmen Of these towns since
their classification asa representative district
us prescribed by law for the purpose Of exam-
lining and comparing lists Of votes for Repre-
sentatives. This fact Mr.. Bradbury was pre-.
pared to show ut the proper time and place.
The credentials Of most il not nll tho mem
ters Of this House from classcd towns consist
only Of official copies OF lists Of votes signed
and certified by the Selectmen OF said towns
precisely like those from Hollis and Water
boro under which Mr.. Bradbury claims his
right to seat. The principle advocated by
the members from Rookland and Kennebunk
which bases the prima .faeie right Of Mr..
Usher to seat in this House not upon certi
6ed copies Of lists Of votes. but upon ccrti
Gcate Of independent and additional facts
signed by the Sclectmen and annexed TO the
regular certified copirs Of lists, would II act
cd upon In other cases rs now proposed in
tho case OF Mr.. Bradbury, unseat nearly cv.
cry member OF this House. Tho papers 10.
ultimately before this House conclusiyely
show the right Of Mr.. Bmdbury to q seat
therein, and he trusted he would not bc de-
privcd Of tho place which his constituents
had 80 clearly assigned him.
Mr.. Stone Of Kennebunk said he was act
ing upon the evidence us Il was now present.
ed to the House at this stage OF the proceed
ings, in recommending the name of Mr.. Ush-
er 70 be placed upon the roll Of the House.
Whatever the facts may DO brought up here
after would receive due attention from the
Committee on Elections, i.Jss Va ilji !
The motion Of Mr.. Farwcll was then car
ried.