Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1867-11-20

spirit of the Law clearly Implying that that notice shall
DC personal notice, no proviscn being made for any
ether method Of notice The facts that Mr. stafford
had received PEI sonal notice. aud that within the
spif, and intent Of the law he had received no notice
he was In Barre two days after the election and ample
opportunity given f1r personal notice but was not
given the statute AZ 10 notice is defective the sitting
member oush, not TO es made 20 suffer by t. As 70 the
was solely at the solicitation Of the citizens Of Barre and
not at Mf siAhords solicitation knowledge. and that
he protested Asanst the taken by hs snds when
he came home and learned wha, had been done As TO
the Mr. Packard and Mr. Smith had never taken the
eemans oath, he said he did not believe that the law
req lred the fact to be shown arafirev that he vot-
er has taken the ffeemana oath The rule ought 20 be
established that man who has voted for series Of
years IN any town ought 10 be presumed have taken
lhe tfeemans oath aud ought to be entted vote In
1896 this house made the decision that member could
not be unse'ed by reason Of having been voted for BY
aman Who has not taken the freeman's oath, and In
isoS different decision made He thought the first
decision the correct
As 10 oNiel appeared that he was foreign born and
had not been naturalired He tho light that was not
sufi'nt his father might have into the be-
lore he had .rved at the Of eighteen years and be-
come nauralzed and thereby carry the naturalization Of
the son with him. He hoped the resolutions would not
Mr. Proctor stated for the committee that az to the
two who had not taken the heemans oath,
ffom Massachueits and one from New York, but that
they had taken tho freeman's OATH although they
had voted previously al elections
Mr Ross Of St Johnsbuiy did not wish to uuseat the
sitting member by doing sh1 1uld be setting bad
precedent He differed with Mr. Ferrn in his consruo-
ton OF The right Of man 20 vote but hot the eemsns
awAs TO giving notice Of the oontesng Of the election
where II says duly notified means legal notice, and
that must be given as other legal be given
The Tact also that the friends Of the sitting member ap-
peAred for him ought to have the effect though
he appeared himself He could see how we could
reverse the decision Of the committee without ing
bad precedent.
Mr. Miner Of Manchester said was clear enough ha,
everJ man 70 vote must have first taken the ffeemAn
oath But he did not think that the notice given In this
case VS. suii seut within the meaning Of the law. He
thoueht that we allowed this method Of notice 1t would
be subject TO abuse where the member return
ed by an overwhelming majority giving the in the
minority opportunity, In the absence Of the elected
member 70 secretly place notice on his premises, and
go on and take ex parte deposons and up un-
seat the elected member when he had kno nothing
about the fac; that his scat was contested He thought
the poce was not sufficient In this and that he had
not had fair hearing I'm court" and that we should
not be Just fed in unsestng him
Mr. Hubbard Of Stockbridge said he could not agree
with the gentleman from Montpelier as 70 his about
heemans oath He thought that the notice given was
sum aent and that we ought to sustain the report Of
NJ Converse Of Woodstock moved to lay the repor,
and resolutions the table and make them the special
agreed to.
Mr. Converse OF Woodstock opposed the resolutions.
aud thought II for the interest Of the house the sit
ing member De retained, as he had got the hang
Of the school house" Nov for whose benefit Ia this
election eonessd Is for the benefit Of the conest-
ing member is Il for the benefit Of the town Ia
the town improperly represented The contest Ia be.
tween the town Of Barre and the sitting member IL
the sitting member Is to be uaseeted IL is because two
men have improperly voted, when these two men have
voted year after year without being challenged and
the menbers nom Barre have held their year after
year without contest Now there Is local controversy
bswsen the voters in Barre, and they pick up these
men to make case against the returned member Bra
re ought not now TO be allowed TO bring this case here
when io years they have encouraged the very OF
tings that they now drag in here TO make case Of.
lie insisted also that the notice sufficient. The
lawrequires that the returned member shall have such
notice as will allow him to be present At the taking Of
tie testimony and that itmust be personal notice and
mot by placing IL in his kitchen or at his back door In
he otv
In prescribed manner. and in of absence OF the
defendant from the state the notice be published
Il must be shown even In legal processes there has
been personI notice The law In relation to notices In
cases Of contested elections clearly required personaI
notice and he thought 1t had not been given in this
case.
MIR Hubbard Of sieekhrdse said his symu.,hi,, rer.
with the sitting member but he the acts show.
ed he was notiegsy elected and entitled TO his
seat As g. the matter Of notice he thought the officer
had done all he could do to give notice. and he should be
compelled to vote against the sitting member.
Mr. ferrin hoped he should be accused OF acting
from anything but dsiuteestsd motives He said that
the gentleman fom stockbrdge, any other member
Of this house knows which Of the claiming seat
was elected We do know that the proper officer has
Der elected and that ought be conclusive unless
clearly shown to the contrary. He acquainted with
both the men, and friendly to both and the burden
thrown upon the sitting member
Nov as 70 the notice, he read from the statutes the
section which provide. that the declared elected
shall be duly notified In writing ." This might have
been done by letter directed to him and would have been
sufficient But the notice slipped under his kitchen
ooor IN MS ABSENCE and the hut is in the law that Ia
not sufficient, ana not in the sitting member MI STAT
ford had no opportunity Of showing how many illegal
votes cast for MIR Reed fom the very fact OF the
inehcency OF the notice I he question is ought We
under the circumstances OF this case overcome the
certificate OF the presiding officer ahd this mem
ber the notice that given there has not clear-
~ bsen compliance with the provisions Of the statute
and we can not adopt these resolutions either in good
iah 70 the sitting member or as setting precedent for
journal OF 1856 In the OF the towr of Addison
where we're four votes cast precisely similar these
and the report unanimous that they legal
The real question, however the legality Of the no.
uee and prscluded from knowing who is legally
elected and that he thought the sitting member entitled
TO his seat.
Mr. Ross Of St Johnsbury said that It Is fairly to be
presumed that the elected member is resident Of the
town and that 1t Is his duty round and see to the
matter Further II is held by the courts that II an at
torney appears In any case the party for whom he Ap
oe.sa l, boutd BY the result. and that Is conclusive
considered In the light Of all the precedents.
Mr. Andrews Of Berlin said that the whole was
The member is either elected he'll not elected The
matter Of notice he thought had nothing to do with the
the cited by Mr. Ferrn had nothing 20 do with this
case But under all the circumstances and acting with
out any psrtay or fear favor in the matter,
do no other way than to give the oontesng member the
seat.
Mr. Nou Of Sharon moved to adjourni disagreed to.
Mr. Mead OF Randolph said he understood the facts
be that Mr. Reed had expressed himself perfectly salts
Ned with the result and that he should not contest the
election Objection being made TO the statement Of
heresay evidence, Mr. Mead said that he thought the
matter Of notice not sufficient and that we ought 10
give Mr. Stafford his seat
hr Proctor said nothing appeared before the commit
tee to subssntiate the statements made by Mr. Mead.
IL further appeared that the notice the best possible
one that could be given under the circumstances and all
The notice could be given He thought the prece-
dents that had been cited not applicable to this
case
Mr. Howe Of Castleton moved the previous question,
which was seconded by the house On the adoption OF
The rssou i'm hr Hancock Of Worcester demanded the
yeas and nays aud they were as follows yeas W nays
SO the resolutions not adopted.