Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1872-01-16

Standard says that sin making the returns,
some of the clerks shortened the names by
! using the initials /. Y. Murch, and II. b.
Saunders" This is not the fact, for if it had
been, it could have been corrected by a sworn
copy of the record under the Revised
Statutes chapter rs, section 5. The fact was
that the votes were actually thrown by the
voters themselves, for l. Y. Murch and Ii. B..
Saunders, and returned as they were thrown !;
and the Supreme Court decides that the Gov
ernor and Council could no: have evidence
outside of the returns, to show that these
votes were intended for Isaac Y. Murch and
Hutson B. Saunders. Then taking the re-
turns as they were, how could the Governor
and Council know that /. Y. Murch was Isaac
| Y. Murch any more than Israel, Isaiah, Icha-
bod, Isaacher or any other person whose
name begins with l.? But says the Stand
ard assuming Isaac Y. Murch and /. Y.
Murch to be one and the same person., he
would have majority" There is the point.
The Standard wanted the Governor and Coun-
Gil to assume what they could not know, that
is, to exercise the Yankee privilege of guess
ing that Murch was elected Votes with on
ly the initials of the name have never, to my
knowledge, been counted and allowed, even by
the Senate and House, which are the absolute
judges of the election of their own members,
without proof outside of the returns, that
they were actually thrown for the candidate
| who claimed them.
/ Tha J,tn
election was contested, was the County Com
missioner, Daniel Deasy, pronounced Dee,
sy) was the democratic candidate. About
Coz votes were actually cast at the polls ana
50 returned, for Daisy or Dasy. Now Dasy
| AID Daisy are no more the same name or per-
son than Dealy and Daily, and the Governor
and Council could no more know that the
votes cast for Daniel Daisy were intended for
Daniel Deasy than if they had been thrown
for John Doe or Richard Roe.
In the Aroostook county case, both the Ellis
worth American and the Standard are under
mistake as to the facts and grounds of the
decision.
The Supreme Court, in their recent opinion
furnished to the Governor and Council in this
very case, says:
''If the returns do not appear to be signed by the
> proper officers, they must be disregarded So ii
the names signed are forgeries that fact may be
shown, for forged returns are not those contempla-
ted by the Statute"
To the same effect, only broader, is the de-
j. csion of the Supreme court of Mass, in
Strong Petr. 90, Pich, 492, in which the court
says:
''The examiners must necessarily determine
the genuineness and legality of the returns"
The Statute under which the examiners
acted in that case is very similar to the one
under which the Governor and Council acted
in this case.
Thus it will be seen that by both of these
g decisions the genuineness and suffciency of
the signatures to a return, were questions
5 open before the Governor and Council
Fl 1t was clearly proved by the affidavits OF
James Kecgan and others, and by inspection
OF the signatures themselves, that James Kee-
gan signed all the names to the returns from
Hamlin plantation. But says the Standard,
sit was done in the presence of the persons
whose names were written without any fraud"
Suppose it was, was that legal return which
the Governor and Council could count and
: allow? .. I-.
The Supreme court has answered that ques-
ton in the case of Chapman vs.. Limerick, in
; the sc Me- r. $780, in which the Court quote
the 18th Rale Of construction from Revised
Statutes chapter /, section 1, ''when the sig
nature of person is required, he must write
it or make his mark" and say ''it was very
public officers, required by the Statute to sign
official documents, and to do away with any
| possible construction by which an official
signature could be made by proxy"
at requires no argument to show that it
was never in the contemplation Of the law
makers, that official certificates or returns,
which the law requires of those holding Ger
tain offices, might be signed by attorney or
agent, or that they could have any validity
unless signed by the officers so that they could
bear his own hand writing. There may be
cases, unquestionably, where the signature
is made by third party, at the request of the
officer, in good faith and with honest inten-
tons by all the parties. And this is, without
question, one Of such cases. But if we sane
ton this mode of authorization in such a
case, we establish doctrine, which will be
far reaching in its effects. 1t would reach to
all cases where any public officer is required
to sign any instrument or certificate. The
clerk of the courts might sign writs, execu-
tons and records by proxy sheriff might
authorize by-stander, perhaps a transient
person, when no one else was present, to
write the sheriff's name to a return of levy.
The Governor of the State might thus sign a
death-warrant.'
"We cannot think it would be either safe or
gal to admit The doctrine, that the signature
may be made by third party, on verbal d.
rections by the officers. We think this should
be understood by all public officers"
As l was of counsel in these cases and
argued in favor of the decision which the
} Governor and Council made, it seemed to be