The Union and journal., 1864-03-04

Ing gof any name from thslist without duo no.
tice to tho party. and giving him an oppor-
tunity to be heard. Yet the names Of two
persons, at least, were proved to have been
struck from the list, without any notice to the
parties, and in violation Of this provision Of
the statute, although both were legal voters.
In regard to the actual number of voters
which could possibly bo entered as such, we
copy from the report Of tho Committee:
The whole number Of polls taxed In 1863,
according to the testimony Of Mr.. Eugley, one
of the assessors. was $50. And there were 81
persons Of all classes taxed in town. And this
included minors and females who have taxable
property, persons under guardianship, and all
others exempted from paying poll tax. The
assessors testified that no poll tax was assessed
on soldiers in the army, but their property was
taxed Ike other citizens. That the town had
sent upwards Of 200 soldiers into the army
prior to the September election. But one Of
the selectmen testified that he had carefully ex-
amined their roll, and Of the whole number
there were but 80 legal voters. By the statute
chap. o, sec. 1, II Is required that "a poll tax
shall be assessed upon every male inhabitant OF
via Ssos0 oDoNc WIG oSo VI - yVoArs WhSsaS'
citizen Of the United States or an alien, unless
exempted by the provisions Of this chapter"
The exempted cases are Indians, persons under
guardianship, and those who "by reason OF
age, infrmity and poverty, are in the judge
ment OF the assessors, unable to contribute to-
ward the public charges" II Is manifest that
the exemptions cannot be numerous. And the
principle collector Of taxes testified that he
knew Of but four legal voters In the town who
IA Al s1ssS Skn~ ~tnfa
number Of persons In town liable to taxation,
including foreigners, minors, females and per
sons not paying o poll tax, was OFT; and the
collector Of taxes, who may fairly be supposed
to be well acquainted with the people In town,
knew Of but four legal voters who were not
included in the 977. Yet the check list used at
the last election, contained I 100 names; max.
ing 222 more males in town above 81 years OF
age, and qualified to be legal voters, than tax
men have an actual existence why are they not
taIedi
Now IL we include tho four not taxed and
deduct the 33 absent in the army, We have
check list containing 94S names. Yet IT'S
jolly Democratic, and 200 Union votes, were
returned to the Secretary Of States Office
q moro votes than there were voters in town.
The ballot Dor used pas like the Marlborough
bor. and the selectmen admitted that eight
men voted without being checked.
The following named persons were allowed
to vote: /
Thomas Blackburne, foreigner, and never
Frederick S. Turner, another Of same sort.
Robert L. Dolham, resident of Warren.
Wm. II. Wilson, foreigner, record Of nat
uralisation not on town records US required
by law.
John Murphy, do.
Myron NJ. Hovey, resident OF Boston.
Charles Mink, town paupcr.
B. B. Robbins, neper had any residence in
Marlborough.
Gilbert " ilson, never had residence in
Marlborough, and never wanted one there,
and never applied to have his name put on
the list. The selectmen entered his name at
the request Of Charles Mink (tho town pau
per above mentioned), who seems by this tes-
to be very influential and hard
working Democ at in this "banner town."
We submit tho case Of Watorborough and
Marlborough without further remarks.
Week before last we spoke Of the necessity
Of active work on the part Of the Republi.
cans in the approaching town elections. We
urge 1t again in order to prevent repetition
Of the frauds practiced like those recorded
above.