The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1875-06-17

he people of Minnesota will reward him
nth handsome majority, particularly
Vabashaw county. LIBERAL.
rhe True History Of the New HamP.
shire Matter.
editor Of the Anti Monopolist
The Pioseer-P Press still persists in misrep-
esenting the action Of the Governor and
Council OF New HAMPSHIRE in relation to the
canvass of votes for State Senators.
That your readers may understand the pre-
Use issue, all w me to refer briefly to the law
and the facts
It is claimed that the Governor and Council,
for partizan ends, usurped authority not
given them by the constitution and laws, and
in violation OF their oaths and duty rejected
and refused to count certain votes cast and re-
turned for Matt. Head, as inended tor Nathan
lei Head, and also rejected certain votes Tor
Arthur Deering on the ground that Mr.. Deer
ing was Ineligible.
:.The Constitution, Art. %, declares that
no person shall be capable Of being elected
Senator who = shall not have been an
inhabitant of the State for seven years imme-
diately preceding his election
Art 81 requires town clerks to make out
and furnish to the Secretary of State copies OF
the record of votes for Senators with the name
Of every person voted tor and the number OF
votes tor each person.
Art 80 directs the Governor and a majority
Of the Council, in order that meeting OF tue
Senate may be duly held, to examine the re-
turns and the Governor to issue his summons
to such persons as appear to be chosen oena-
tors by majority OF the vote, to attend ana
take seats in the Senate
Art. 81 provides tor the election, by the con-
vention Of such Senator'S as are declared
elected and the members of the House OF
Representatives. OF Senator for any district
in which Senator shall not appear to be
elected
Art IS declares that 'the Senate shall be
the final judges Of the elections, returns and
qualifications as their own members.
Mr.. Deering appeared personally be-
fore the Governor and Council, and tes-
titled that she had only resided in, and
been an inhabitant of the State since
1871" That he was ineligible under
article 20, above cited there can be no
dispute. Hal the Governor and Coun.
Gil the right to reject the votes for Deer
ing!
| In Cushing'> Law and Practice Of Legisla-
| tive Assemblies" an exhaustive work, and OF
| high authority ON the subject of political and
erence to elections by ballot, where an abso-
lutte majority is required, and where, conse-
uuently. the whole number OF votes is first to
be ascertaned, in order to find what is ma
iority. ssVotes given for ineligible persons
must of course BE- excluded from the en- !mera.
| ton tor the reason that the whole balloting
would he void, and all the votes excluded, II
they were all Tor such candidates, 1t would be
! pre- posterous to enumeraie such vote where
they constituted part only OF the votes given
in"
have found no report OF any case in the
courts o.this country where the precise ques'
ton has been brought before the court Tor de-
cision. except the case of Gulick Va Ne, IA In
diana Reports 90, and that case fully sustain:
the general rule 0: the common law, that vote:
Tor ineligible persons are to be rejected iron
the count for all purposes. The q estlon also
arose in a contested election case before tht
committee on elections in the Massachusetts
House OF Representatives in lS4S, reported Il
SIG, The report of the committee was unanl
NOUS that votes for an ineligible candidate
were to be regar ded as no votes tor any pur
pose.
Permit me alse to quote from Judg
Fowler late Chief Justice, of the Suprem
Court. and one of the fathers Of the Re
publican party in New Hampshire. Il
says:
81 can entertain no doubt whatever that th
Governor and Council are by the constutIo
: not only authorized, but required, whenevt
any controversy arises tefore them, CAREFUL
/. to scrutinize the returns, hear and consldt
evidence and arguments, compare facts, a
eide and determine for whom the votes n
> turned were cast, whether the returns then
:. selves are correct or incorrect, whether 4
I votes returned were legally cast, whether the
were cast for eligible or ineligible candidate
and whether they were returned In conformi
with the requis ements OF the constitution az
laws and after such scrutiny and mvest'g
l $..I eant1 N
e to have received majority OF the votes legal
cast and returned for eligible candi dates
/ think this disposes of the case 50 f
as the votes for Mr.. Deering are concer
g ed.
d The votes for Matt Heard were reject
j. in accordance with the following statut
It "The FULL christian and sir name OF eve
N person voted for. with the initial letter or Il
:, iers OF the middle name, and the usual abb
- viations for Junior, second, third, ana
~ like, shall he VIZ ten or printed upon eve
OF talls t; and every ballot not thus prepared a
st cast shall be regarded as BLANK and M
>. COUNTED" lIGeneral Statutes, ch- ., 3
of s,p.se-
lie The history Of this statute may be
n teresting in connection with this case.
I'd was passed in 1853. when the writer v
r
he the contested election case OF H'
N. bard VS.. Farnesworth. The facts
IA that case were unanimously report
IN to the House by select committee OF
Ter fsix Democrats and four opposlticn,l
M follows: At the general election IN
his town of Washington, Geo. Il. huoba
lot who was physician and sometimes cal
it'll DR.. Hubbard, Was the Democratic cal
m. date. and the only man by the nam'
,ht Hubbard on the poll list. David Fal
Ir. sworth. ID, was the opposition candid
us. and there was also upon the Poil II
hat David Farnsworth, David Farnesworth,
,ult and Daniel Farnesurth. On the 9th
Va lot Hubbard had majority OF all
sey votes cast, but some were written 0es
INTO Il. Hubbard, some G. H. Hubbard. $
adi- DR., Hubbard and some simply Hubb
for Votes for Framework we're written u
Heir Farnesworth ID, D. Farneswortn "a,
rm- Fsrnesworth and Farneseth. There
1 L. a r