The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-11-18
the Cornvall Contested Election
ClSc.

| NH UNI pf HE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
To The House Of Representatives.:
The committee on elections. To whom
was referred the remonstrance of Milo b
Williamson and three others against th
right of Edward =. Dana to a seat upor
the floor of the house, and the memorial Of
said Williamson asking to be admitted t
said seat, respectfully report that they hay,
considered the same, heard the proofs pre-
sented by returned member, as well as re
monstrant together with the claims apt
arguments of the learned counsel appear
ing Tor both parties. AMI would submit til,
following:
AT the election in the town of Cornwall
on the first Tuesday of September, A. y
1874, there were cast for town representa-
i've two hundred ana nine (209) votes, ont
hundred and seven of which were thrown
for Edward 5. Dana, the returned memb r.
and one hundred and one for Milo b
Williamson, the remonstrant, and one fol
Orrin Field.
The remonstrant claimed that ten of tn,
votes for the returned member to wit, the
votes of Isaac Durosier, John Mathew
Theophilus Baldwin, Joseph Adams, Alder
Lowell, John Lowell, Paschal Lowell,
Bruno Tricot, Eli Donor and Thomas Rowe
should not haYe been received and counted
John Mathew had not taken the freemen's
oath when he voted.
Theophilus Baldwin had not resided in
Cornwall the necessary three months next
previous to his voting.
Isaac Duroser was an alien, and it did
not appear that he had been nat rallied
And so the committee do not count for
the returned member the votes of John
Mathew. Theophilus Baldwin and Isaac
| Durosier.
NO evidence was presented to the COM
mittee showing for whom Bruno Tricot
voted, and no satisfactory proof that he
was not citizen and invested with all the
rights of voter, though it was otherwise
claimed duriag the hearing.
The testimony showing for whom Eli
Donor voted, and putting IN question his
right to vote, was not taken until Septem.
Der "a, 1874. which testimony the COM
mittee decided not to consider, as will here
matter more fully appear.
Joseph Adams, Albert Lowell, Paschal
Lowell, John Lowell. and Thomas Rowe.
as appeared from production and exhib-
ition of the record of the city court of the
city of Vergennes, had been regularly
naturalized, to be citizens of the Unite,!
States. The record in these cases was re-
gular and complete upon its face, though
somewhat informally kept.
So, then, the committee count for the
returned member the votes of Bruno
Tricot, Eli Donor, Joseph Adams, Albert
Lowell, Paschal Lowell, John Lowell, and
Thomas Rowe.
The returned member claimed that five
of the votes thrown for the remonstrant
to wit: The votes of Michael Maroney,
Cornelius Collins, George G.. Patterson, and
two votes folded together, indicating that
they were both cast by one and the same
voter, should not have been counted.
Michael Maroncy and Cornelius Collins
had been naturaized Maroney in 1856, in
the county of Niagara, N. Y, and Collins
1921 &ei IL Glnt2p % f rg MhGGh
committee. The two votes apparently
folded together were crowded one into the
other in putting them into the ballot box,
as your committee believe, and were not
cast by one man.
Then the votes of Michael Maroncy aud
Cornelius Collins, and the folded votes. are
counted Tor the remonstrant.
George C. Patterson had not resided in
Cornwall three months next before his vot-
ing
Then the vote of George G. Patterson is
not counted for the rem0nstrant.
Thus finding that of the legal votes cast
for town representative, at the election in
the town of Cornwall. on the first Tuesday
of September, A. ID. 1874. there should
have been counted for the returned men,
Der, Edward S. Dana, one hundred and
| four, and for the remonstrant, Milo b.
Williamson, one hundred; there being one
vote for Orrin Field. The voting for town
representative at said election was rs fol-
| lows:
Whole number OF votes cast,."....205
Necessary to choice.
Edward 5. Dana had...... .....l04
Milo b. Williamson had.......100
Orrin Field ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. l
AT the outset of the hearing before the
committee, the returned member, by his
counsel, seasonably made certain claims
and objected to the introduction of certain
testimony.
| LIST. Because not taken within fourteen
days after the election. This objection was
made under sec. 2S, chap. l, General Stat
| utes.
| Cd. Because the names of certain wit
nesses were not mentioned in the notice for
taking their testimony.
3D.. Because some of the testimony taken
after the returned member rested, was not
rebuttng. This objection was made under
secs. 2S and 30, chap. l, Gen. Stats.
| ftu. ODJcCtlOu WAS lIluuC W any tc5tl-
mony tending to invalldate the naturaliza-
ton proceedings had, in the matter of nat
uralizing any citizen who voted at the
election in question.
9Th. 1t was claimed that Il voter was not
obliged to disclose for whom he voted at
the polls, even in contested election cases.
Your committee, after duly considering
the claims and objections, decided to re-
ceiye and consider the testimony falling
under the first objection, regarding the
statute relating thereto directory and not
| prohibtory in its provisions some of the
testimony referred to was taken as late as
the third day after the expiration of the
| fourteenth.
The second objection was not regarded
we'll taken in any sense, and was over
ruled.
The third objection was well taken, and
the committee have not considered any tes-
timony taken by the contestant after the
returned member rested the taking of his
testimony which was not rebutting.
The fourth objection gave the committee
more trouble; but after carefully consider
ing and patiently studying lis request, they
are unanimously, upon both authority and
principle, conducted to the conclusion that
n record of naturalization proceedings reg
ularly made up by court of competent
jurisdiction, cannot be inquired into nor
impeached for even collision, fraud or per-
jury, If arising out of matters once prop
erly lain before and passed upon by the
court granting naturalization.
1t was urged upon the committee by Mr.
Phelps, the contestants counsel, that in
election matters, public policy demands
that they recommend and the House adopt
a close and critical examination into all the
details and particulars of the eligibility of
citizenship in instances of naturalization,
to the end that the integrity OF that eligi-
bility may not be imposed upon, and the
ancient purity and sacredness of elections
in our state may be preserved.
The committee, we trust, are suitably
impressed with the force and propriety of
this suggestion, and are not unmindful of
its claim upon their attention.
While we would rejoice in more COM
- III