The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1874-11-24
THE CORNWALL CONTESTED
ELECTION CASE.


To the House Of Representatives:
The committee on elections. 10 whom
was referred the remonstrance Of Mil,
b. Williamson and three others agains
the right of Edward 8. Dana to sea
upon the floor Of the house, and the me-
mortal of said Williamson asking to be
admitted to said seat, respectfully repor
that they have considered the same, ,heart
the proofs presented by returned member
as well as remoDstrant, together with the
claims and arguments Of the Learned
counsel appearing for both parties ant
would submit the following:
At the election in the town of Corn
wall on the first Tuesday Of September
A. D. 1874 there were cast for town rep
resentative two hundred and nine 1909,
votes, one hundred and seven of which
were thrown for Edward s. Dana. the
returned member, and one hundred and
one for Milo b. Williamson, the remon
strant, and one for OrriD Field.
The remonstrant claimed that ten O
the votes for the returned member to wit
the votes of Isaac Dorosier, John Mahew
Theophilus Baldwin, Joseph Adams. AL
bert Lowell. John Lowell. Paschal Low
ell, Bruno Tricot. Eli Dono~ and Thomas
Rowe. should not have been received ant
counted.
John Mahew had not taken the free.
mems oath when he voted,
Theophius Baldwin bad not resided "
Cornwall tho necessary three months mex
previous to his voting.
Isaac Durosier was an alien, and it die
not appear that he had been naturalized
And so the committee do not count fol
the returned member the votes of Johr
Mahew, Theophilus Baldwin and Isaac
Dorosier.
No evidence was presented to the com
mittee showing for whom Bruno Tricot
voted, and no satisfactory proof that hi
was not u citizen md invested with oil
the rights Of voter, though it was 9th
erwse claimed during the hearing.
The testimony showing for whom Eli
Donor voted, and putting in question hi.
right to vote, was not taken until Septem
Der "a, 1874. which testimony the com
mittee dcided not TO codsider, as will
hereinafter more fully appear
Jo5eph Adams, Albert Lowell, Pas.
chal Lowell John Lowell and ihoma,
Rowe. as appeared from production ant
exhibition of the record of the city cour
Of the city of Vergennes, had been reg
ularly naturalized to be citizens of the
United States. The record in these cases
was regular and complete upon its face
though somewhat informally kept.
So, then, the committee count for the
returned member the votes of Bruno Tri.
cot, Eli Donor, Joseph Adams. Albcr
Lowell, Paschal Lowell, John Lowell ant
Thomas Rowe
The returned member claimed that fiv,
OF the votes thrown for the remonstrant
to wit The votes Of Michael Maroney
Cornelius Collins. George &. Patterson
and two votes folded together, indicatin!
that they were both cast by one and tn,
same voter should not have been counted
Michael Maroney and Cornelius Col
lins had been Daturalized: Maroney il
1856, in the county Of Niagara, n. Y.
which facts were shown to the satisfaction
of the committee. The two votes appa
rently folded together, were crowded one
Into the other in putting them into tn,
ballot box, as your committee believe
and were not cast by one man.
Then the votes of Michael Marone,
and Cornelius Collins, and the folded
votes. ore counted for the remonstrant.
George G. Patterson had not resided
in Cornwall three months nc1, before hi
voting.
Then the vote of George G. Patterson
is not counted for the remoustraut.
Thus GDding that Of the legal vote
cast for town representative. at the elec
tiou in the town OF Cornwall. on the frs
Tuesday of September, a. d 1874 ,ther
should have been counted for the returne,
member, Edward s. Dana. one hundrc,
and four, and for the remonstrant, MilC
b. Williamson, one hundred there be
ing vote for Orrin Field The voting 70
town representative ut said election wa
as follows:
Whola number Of votes east, 205
Necessary to "A choice l03
Edward s Dana had l04
Milo B. Williamson had 100
Orrin Field had |
At the outset Of the hearing before tn
committee. the returned member, by hi
counsel, sea-onably made certain claim
and objected to the Introduction of Ger
tain testimony
lst. because not taken within four,ee
days after the election This objection
was made under sec, 2S, chap | Gener
al Statutes.
I'd. because the names of certain vii
nesses were not mentioned in the motto
lor taking their e-iimony.
I'D. Because >,nir Of the testimony Ia
ken after the rrInrnrd member rested
was not rebutling This objection wa
made under secs 2S and %. chap. |
General Statuses
4th. Objection was made TO amy test
mony tending to nvalidaie the nuiurali
zation proceedings had. in the matter c
naturDlizing any citizen who voted at IN
election in question.
9th. 1t was claimed that voter wa
not obliged to disclose for whom he vote
at the polls, even in contested electio
eases.
Your committee after duly considerin
the claims aud objections, decided to re
ceive and consider the testimony fallin
under the hrst objection. regarding th
statute relating tbereto directory and no
prohibitory in its provisions some of tn
testimony referred to was taken as lot
as tho third day after the expiration {
the fourteenth.
The second objection was not regarde
well taken in any sense and was owe
ruled.
The third objection was veil taken, an
the committee have not considered an
testimony taken by the contestant aite
the returned member rested the taking