Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1871-02-10

-
! reanexation of that portion of the town set Oft
TO the town of Limerick by the Legislature oil
| 1870
Mr.. SANBoRN, frem the Judiciary Commit
| tee, reported legislation inexpedient on oruer
l relating to the expediency of Legislation Tor
Hthe protection of mill, owners. The report
was tabled pending its acceptance, ons motion
| of Mr.. KEEoAN.
Same member from the same Committee,
on petition reported bill an actt establish
| Municipal Court in the city of Lewiston.
| Read and assigned.
| Same member, reported ought not to pass
| on bill an act to amend chap. 466 OF the
| special laws of 1870, entitled an act to procure
| the enforcement of an act to prevent the
| throwing of slabs and other refuse into the
| Penobscot river.
! Mr.. Bliss. from the Judiciary Committee,
reported legislation inexpedient on order re-
lating to preventing spendthrifts from vast
ing their wages.
Sane member, from the same committee,
| made the same report on order relating to re-
| pealing the law regulating the sale of milk.
Mr.. HUTcHINGs, from the same committee,
reported reference to the next Legislature, on
| petition of Samuel w. Hoskins for authority
| to lay out way in the town of Oldtown.
Mr.. CLEAvEs, from the Committee on Le-
| gal Reform, on petition reported bill an act
| to make valid the doings of District No. in
the town of Burnham. Read and assigned.
Mr.. PArTES, from the Committee on Rail-
roads, Ways and Bridges, on petition re-
| ported bill an act TO amend the charter of the
| Wiscasset Bridge Company, approved June
! 80, lS46. Read and assigned.
Mr.. HoBsoS, fLom the Committee on In
| terror Waters, on petition reported bill an act
| to amend an act, 30 incorporate the Auburn
Aquaduct Company. Read and assigned.
Mr.. KNAPP, from the Committee on Elec-
| tons, submitted his views in the case of Gid
con A. Hastings VS.. Moses c. Foster. as fol-
lows
The undersigned member of the commit
| tee on elections, who was unable TO sign the
report presented, respectfully asks leave to
submit his views of the conflicting claims of
Gideon A. Hastings and Moses c. Foster to a
sea- in this House.
Moses c. Foster in response to the Govern
ors warrant on the convening of the Legisla-
ture, appeared, took, and subscribed the req
uisite oaths and is therefore, prima facie.
member of this house.
Gideon A. Hastings, having in season filed
his petition therefor, comes and contests the
right of said Foster to hold his seat; hence,
the burden of proof is upon the former, to
show thatthe latter is not the rghtful possessor
and if he fails to do this, or leaves the ques-
ton in doubt, our decision must be against
him.
As shown by the report. the question invol-
we'd, was whether IA votes cast for a. Hast
ings in Hamlen Grant Plantation, at the last
September election, in the representative
district wherefrom Mr. Foster is the sitting
| member, should be counted for Gideon A.
| Hastings, or for A. Hastings, according to
| their purport.
| If counted for Gideon A. Hastings then
| he was elected; if counted for A. Hastings.
then Mr.. Foster should retain his seat.
| These IA votersby afHdavits come forth and
say that they INTENDED TO vote for Major
Gideon A.. Hastings" but that in fact they
voted for A. Hastings, ''that they have sever
| ally known Maj. Gideon A Hastings many
years, and have always heard him called and
known him by the name of Alphonso Hast
| ings, and supposed that he had not any other
name than Alphonso."
The only real ground of difference between
us was on the propriety of allowing these af-
fidavits to control or affect the declared re-
suit of the election.
| To me, their reception seemed SO subvers-
i've of all the purposes for which the ballot
| box is provided and so dangerous and unsafe
in principle as to be improper.
| The principle if allowed would not only be
bad as precedent, but would actually change
| our system of elections as required by the
| constitution and laws of the state.
| Sec. 90 of chap. of the Revised Statutes is
| that NO ballot shall be received at any cleo
| ton of state or town officers unless in writin g
| or printing, upon clean white paper without
| any Distinguishing marks or figures thereon
besides the name of the person voted for and
the Offices TO be filed"
| The clear implication OF the Statute is, the
| ballot shall bear, 1.-The name Of the person yo-
| ted for" and that alone is 10 determine the
| question, as to who is elected.
| To allow an elector TO say afterwards. that
| voting A. Hastings he intended TO aid in
electing Gideon A. Hastings would not only
| be plain violation of law, but would be vot-
| ing without any system or rule. Such
| elector might pass into the ballot box any
thing he chose-a piece of blank paper, OF
| like the ancien,s, an ivory ball, and by his
| verbal sta,ement, have such count for this OF
| that man.
Such would be Ia contravention Of tina,
| general principle of law applicable TO every
| case in Law and equity, that prohibits the in
| PRODUCTION Of parole testimony to contradict
| or change a written contract, and would at
| all times leave door wide open for fraud and
| deception.
Again, if any part of the persons name
| voted for is to be discarded where is the law
| that says whidh part. Where is the law that
says how much of mans name may be
left off and still the vote be counted for him !
where can we begin and where leave off?
If we can leave off the first name why not the
last? One might as well stay at home and
say if he had been at the polls, he would have
voted for this or that man and have his
vote counted according as he might wish
after the election had passed.
Voting 10 regulated by law, and the voter
must conform thereto or he DISTINGUISHES him
self, and equally so, if by carelessness or
through ignorance he does not see that the
name of the person he wishes to vote for is
| properly put upon his ballot.
These same atlantis had the name right two
| years ago. Who but themselves are response
| BILE for their short memory If they had
never known him called by any other name
than Alphonso, and had known him for a
| long time, why in 1868, did they vote for him
| by the name of Gideon II?
! 1t it be said that the majority ought to rule,
the question comes, what majority! The re-
| ply is that it must be that majority which ex-
l Al. tuIl -