Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1870-11-10
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.
To M9 House Of Representatives.

To Me House Of Representatives.;
The Committee ou Elections, to whom
was referred the remonstranca Of Z. T.
Ba,l~Y a5ninst the right OF Andrew J.
Taylor to seat upon the floor of the
House, and the memorial of said Bailey
asking TO be admitted to said seat, re-
spectfully report that they have con-
sidered the same, together with the prco's IS
furnished your Committee by both the re-
turned member and the remoustrant, also
the arguments of counsel who appe lred
for the parties: and would say that it ap-
peared before your Committee that thirty
nine votes were cast for town representa-
tive in the town of Brunswick, on the
first Tuesday of September, A. d. 1870,
twenty.one of which were cast for the re-
turned member, Andrew J. Taylor, and
eighteen for the remonstrant, E. T. Bal
ley. The remonstraut claimed that two
of the votes received and counted for the
returned member, to wit: that of Horace
B. Rich and Charles Chase, should have
been rejected. OF these two votes, your
Committee, by vote Of five to two, held
that that Of Horace b. Rich was correctly
received and, by vote of five to two,
they held that that of Charles Chase
improperly received, thus reducing,
by majority vote, the number of legal
votes cast for the returned member to
twenty; but minority of your com
mittee held that he had only nineteen
votes.
The contestant claimed before your
committee that four votes were offered
for him and rejected by the board of civil
authority, which should have been re-
ceived and counted, w: that of True
worthy Brown, John M. Cooper. John W.
Sweet and Eleazer Titus OF these four
votes, your committee, by an unanimous
vote, held that Eleazer Titus was voter
in the town of Brunswick at said meet
ing, and that his vote should have been
received and counted and they also held,
by an unanimous vote. that John nj.
Cooper and John W. Sweet were not
legal voters at said meeting, and that
their votes were properly rejected Your
committee also, by majority vote Of four
to three, held that Trueworthy Brown
was not voter at said meeting; which
various judgings, by the majority of your
committee, would give the remonstrant
one vote in addition to those received al |
counted, making for the remonstrant
nineteen votes at said meeting, leaving a
majority of one for the returned member
but minority of your committee main |
tain that the remonstrant should be |
allowed twenty votes, and that the vote |
OF Horace b. Rich, which was received |
aud counted for the returned member, |
was illegal, thereby reducing his vote to
nineteen, leaving the remonstrant one
majority.
The returned member, through his
Mr.. Gleason, objected to the no.
tice and service thereof, that the same
was insufficient; but your committee de-
cided by vote of five to two that it was
sufficient. The returned member objected
also, through his counsel, to the admissi- |
bility of the remonstrant's testimony, on
the ground that the same was not taken
within the time prescribed by statute, it
that the jurat on the depoei-
tions was dated the 21st day of September,
1870, and bis counsel claimed that the /
iurat was conclusive as to the time when |
the depositions were taken but thia ob-
lection was not raised until after the de-
positions were read without objection to I
your committee and it was declared by |
the counsel for the returned member, that I
prior to the commencement OF the hear
ing, he had entered into an agreement
with counsel for the remonstrant to treat
the certificates upon said deposItions as
signed by the Justice, which certificates
were to the effect that the testimony was
taken within the fourteen days prescribed
by law /; whereupon your committee, by