The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1864-02-05
The Hollis and WATERFORD Contested
80 Election Case.

A hearing took place in this case before the
House committee on Wednesday last. The
facts, as developed by the affadavits, were
as follows. Hollis and WATERFORD are classed
together for the choice of Representative.
The candidates voted for in Sept, were Henry
A. Usher, Union, and Henry H. Bradbury
Democrat. The certificates signed by the
selectmen of the different towns, and certified
by the clerks, showed that in Hollis Mr.. Usher
received PIT and Mr.. Bradbury. ISL votes. In
WATERFORD Mr. Usher received l9l and Mr..
Bradbury 27S votes, making 81 majority for
Bradbury. 1t seems the selectmen OF the two
towns never met together in pursuance OF the
requirements of the law to compare their re-
spectiye votes, one party alleging that the
WATERFORD selectmen neglected to meet at
time and place fixed upon by agreement, and
the other party alleging that no SUCH Time OF
place had been fixed, as the law requires that
they should be. 1t seemed to US from the tes-
timony that the selectmen failed to do their
duty; that no time or place had been dell
nitely agreed upon for such meeting though
the selectmen OF Hollis doubtless supposed
past custom-which does not appear to have
been uniformly followed-would bring them
together at particular time and place.
Meeting there and finding no votes before
them except those of their own town, and
these electing Mr.. Usher, the selectmen OF
Hollis gave him a certificate to that effect,
and the legislature, on this certificate as
prima .fdcie evidence, gave him the seat. Mr..
Bradbury's credentals-the certificate OF the
Waterford yote-went into the hands OF the
legislature, and he appeared to contest Mr..
Usher's right to the seat.
This is not ALL Mr.. Usher has introduced
testimony showing that while check list was
used in WATERFORD upon which at the close
OF the meeting there werebut 476 names, "A
of which were either erased or remained I'M
checked, leaving only 432 checked names upon
the list, these were AGO votes returned = 81
more than the check list called for. One of
these votes was accounted for, being that OF
man not on the list who claimed the right to
vote, and after examination was allowed to
do SO, though through carelessness, or for
some other reason his name was not entered
by the clerk. Such are the substantial facts.
No pretense is made that any one unchecked
actually voted; the presumption is, therefore,
that SO votes were put into the box which had
no right there. Mr.. Usher's counsel - Mr..
vinton-contends that such fraud proved
taints the whole vote OF the town, and should
yiiiate the whole proceeding and cause the
vote Of the town to be thrown out.
The arguments were to be made yesterday,
and we suppose it will be contended by Mr..
Bradbury's counsel that, allowing the SO votes
to be fraudulent, and allowing them all to
have been given for Mr.. b., latter throwing
them out, he would still have Is majority, and
should, therefore, have his seat. What view
the committee will take we do not undertake
TO foretel. We venture the opinion however,
that should they deem the whole vote Of
WATERFORD Initiated, they will most likely
consider the two towns in their united rela-
tion as a district, and decide that the whole
election was void and that the case should be
remandad to the people. The matter is in
good hands, and We hope that right may pre-
vail.