Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1870-11-17
Legislative Discussions,
BRUNSWICK CONTESTED ELECTION CASE

Cnester called up the motion TO reeonsld
the votes in relation to the Brunswis
contested election case.
Mr.. Wood of Fairhaven said that in b
opinion there was a question of law
this case that ought to be considered. E
said that in this case it makes no diffe
enoe whether Trueworthy Brown was
voter or not. The committee report tn
his vote was improperly rejected but Il
contestant should have shown that
made such statements to the board of civ
authority as would have entitled him
vote. All that appeared before the con
mittee was that Mr.. Brown offered b
vote for Mr.. Bailey and was rejected.
be did not make such statement to Ii
civil authority as would entitle him I
vote, the committee would have no rigl
to say that his vote was improperly II
iected by such civil authority. The bear
had the right to the best evidence tha
could be produced as to the right Of an
challenged voter to cast his vote; and
no evidence is furnished. the board hav
the right to reject the vote-the civil au
thority being constituted q tribunal to de
termine upon the right of any man +
vote, and their decision ia binding upol
the presiding officer. In the absence o
any evidence before the civil authorit,
that Trueworthy Brown had a right +
vote, their decision ought to be final il
the matter. This decision, if sustainet
by the House, will give the seat TO the re
turned mem ber, Andrew J. Taylor.
Mr. Henry of Chester said that he wa
in favor of reconsideration for the pur
pose of having a matter If law broueh
before this Hous, which was not properly
presented in the majority report, an5
which was conclusive as to this case.
Mr.. Bull of Hancock said he felt con
vinced that he had voted on the wrou2
side of the question the other day, anc
was in favor of the motion for reconsid, I
alton.
MIR. Grout OF Barton said that ht
thought at first he would not oppose thi
motion to consider; but upon rrHecriot
he thought il ought not to be reconsI6ered
as it would not result in anything profit
able to the case, If there is any ncw High
to be given, it is proper to give those rac's
at this stage, and before the question i,
taken on the motion to reconsider. He
said this question of law raised by Mr.
Wood of Fairhaven Is an entirely new
one, urged after Judgment had been run
dered, and for the purpose OF overthrow
ing the deliberate decision Of this House
a species of tactics only resorted 10 in ex-
treme cases, and as a last resort, when NJ
other arguments can avail. He did not
understand that this House sits here
as court of appeal; but by the con-
stitution we are an original court,
and have the right to decide upon the
legality of the election OF any and all of
the members OF the House. This is mere
ly technical question, not thought of by
friends of the returned member before the
bnt only presented to affect tie
action of this House after Judgment had
been presented. The presumption is that
Brown did make his showing
before the board of civil authority, in the
absence of any evidence to the contrary.
He said that two others of the committee
concurred with him in finding that True
worthy Brown was voter; but they 90
further, and find also that another man
was voter, which would have given the
election to the contestant. But his was a
middle ground-that 10 person received
a majority, there being, as be believed, q
tie vote. He reviewed some Of the reasons
that influenced his aotion in regard to
Trueworthy Browns vote, and believed
that his views in regard to the matter are
correct. He thought it not wise to open
the case for consideration by the House.
Mr.. Wood of Fairhaven said he dis
liked to trouble the House further in this
matter, and would not do so but for the
remarks of the gentleman from Barton
criticising his position in this case. He
it was the duty of Trueworthy
Brown to have presented such facts To the
board Of civil authority Of the town Of
Brunswick a. TO satisfy hem that he was
entitled to vote, and it was TOO late for him
to come here now and ask this House to
90 back OF the action Of the Board, lie
this matter of the highest
as affecting the rights OF
members to seats on the floor of this
House. He hoped that the motion to re-
consider would prevail, and that the in
erests of the parties concerned would be
airly canvassed by the House, ard the
question decided upon its merits.
Mr.. Henry of Chester said he WAS
ware when these reports were made, ot
he superior ability of the gentleman from
Barton, aud the elcquenCe with which he
would argue mis- views of the case. The
point of law that he would make was that
here was not legal notice by the contest
mt to the returned member Of his inten-
ion to contest his seat, from the fact that
he notice was not directed to any officer,
md was served by an individual He
hen caused to be read the report of the
majority OF the committee in the Barre
contested election case in 1867, in which
he notice was decided not sufficient
from this precedent, he argued that the
lotice in the present case was not suffi-
lent, it being exactly similar to the no.
ice in the Barre case. He made anoth-
r point, that the remonstrant's tey
imony was net taken within the
ime required by law that it should be
AIKEN. AS to the right of Trueworthy
5rown to vote, he thought the testimony
f Mr.. Brown himself was conclusive that
le was not legal voter in Brunswick,
When he directly testified that he left the
own OF Brunswick with no intention TO
eturn unless the Company rebuilt the |
nills-which he did not expect would be |
one. This is q question of the rights of
owns, and not of the rights of indiyi-
uals. By our votes we have said the |
title town OF Brunswick shall be disfran-
hised ON the floor of the House-a de- |
ision which he thought decidedly wrong. |
lie should submit to the decision Of the |
majority of the House, with all Difference |
the right of the msjority to rule; but
q this case, If it is against the right of Mr.. |
Taylor to retain his seat, he could only
ubmit to it in the light of submitting to
great wrong.
Mr.. Grout of Barton said he had but
Vord more to say, and that was in regard |
o the points raised by the gentleman
rom Chester-one of which related to the |
OF the notice given by the con-
estant in this case. He claimed that
he Barre contested election case, referred |
0, was not parallel with this case. In
his case personal notice was given; both
arties have acted under this notice, and |
! was too late to raise q technical point |
egarding the legal force of that notice
he committee thought that the notice
7as sufficient, inasmuch as it was ac-
epted by the sitting member and the |
fort now made TO go back of the action
the majority of the committee was like |
/ - o~,n,o ~ rs 1rorrpipr- vpop ~ oo+nb O /. |