Ellsworth American., 1875-05-20

legally elected"
Frank McGown, (DemocraD testified.
II was present at the counting of votes
There were eight scratched votes counted
as il not scratched. 1 sag positively that
Hiimot McGO,oa had .dre scratched rotes,
and Royal Tyler had three"
X. W. Clement, Ward Clerk testified,
that the scratched ballots were counted as
ii unscratched-that Leach had Is votes
for Alderman, none erased or scratched
Wilson had so votes in all for Alderman
and three of them were erased or scratch
ed.-that Hamilton had IS votes for Coun-
Gilman. none scratched. and Holmes had
80 in all with two scratchcd-ihat TYLER
had IS votes in all with two erased-and
McGown had - vote, with five erased.
Seven scratched ballots were produced
by the Mayor. and identified as the identi-
cal ballots gathered by Tyler. These bal
lots on examination corresponded with the
testimony OF the witnesses
1t will be seen at once. that taking from
Wilson's 30 votes the three erased ones
which were wrongly coun.ed Tor him. he
he would have but H., and Leach having
Is unscratched votes would have one ma
jority. Taking from Holmes 50 votes the
two erased ones wrongly counted for him.
he would have but 4S, or the same as
Hamilton. and consequently there was no
I,,f-s Al ~
the five erased votes wrongly counted for
him he would have but 4i-and taking from
Tyler's Il votes the two erased votes
wrongly counted for him. he would have
46. majority OF two over McGown.
1t is apparent that by a correct count
Leach and Tyler were elected. The ad-
mitting them TO seats was simply the re-
suit OF correcting an admitted mistake
Honest business men are always eager
to correct mistakes. and so are honest
politicians. We are glad to believe that
willing to have the mistakes in the Fourth
Ward corrected. What shall be said OF
those men Who opposed the correction Of
those mistakes even TO the extent OF viola
ting and counseling violation of official
obligations and deliberate breach of official
duty? Can fair minded people OF either
party have any confidence in such political
leadership Can they trust their interests
with such partisans?
Conscious of condemnation, some of the
secessionists and their counselors have
been eager TO justify themselves. They
complain that the Mayor insisted on pre-
siding in the Board of Aldermen-that he
claimed the right TO give the casting vote
and even that he was ungentle in assert
ing his alleged right. They complain that
both presiding officers disallow ed the votes
of those members whose seats were con-
tested.
Such complaints, if true, are no justfi-
cation. Errors in rulings will not justify
any member in abandoning the duty his
constituents have assigned him. The pre-
siding officers ruled honestly. according
to their understanding of parliamentary
law, and their rulings were substantially
correct. The Sd section of the City Char
ter declares that the Mayor shall preside
in the Board Of Aldermen, and have the
casting vote. There is nowhere in the
Charter, or elsewhere. all exception TO :hs
duty and right By the 20th section the
Board of Aldermen, in the absence Of the
Mayor, may choose President, pro tenn
No right is given them. TO choose a chair
man when the Mayor is present.
The refusal TO allow those members
whose seats were contested TO vote on mo-
tons affecting their rights. was correct.
Cushing's Manual says. in section s.
"Where question arises involving the
right of a member 10 his seat, such mem
Der to be heard on the question, and he is
TO withdraw from the assembly until it is
decided; but, if by the Indulgence of the
assembly he remains in his place during
the discussion. he ought neither to take
any further part in it, nor TO vote when
the question is proposed.
IN SNNNAOu II VI tbN shiht IL
says: III, notwithstanding. 4 member
should remain IN the assembly and vote.
his vote may and ought to be disallowed. :.
it being contrary not only to the laws OF
decenoy, but to the fundamental principles
of the social compact, that a man should
sit and act as judge in his own case"
The suariter of the mayor in resisting
encroachments on his prerogative, will
perhaps compare favorably with that of his
immediate predecessor. Some rulings of
the Democratic mayor will hardly bear
criticism, and perhaps some wilfuness
may have been AT times displayed by him,
as when he suppressed unwelcome papers
sent up from the common council. Re
publican Aldermen remained at their posts
and endured the manners of the Democrat
ic mayor. II Democratic Aldermen could
not endure the manners of Mayor Grant,
they should have resigned, and given place
TO men of sterner stuff. 1t will be hard
however. TO persuade Ellsworth people
that Mayor Grant could have acted effen-
sively.
These grievances however could not
have been deeply felt. They could be
readily parted with for consideration. 1t
was proposed that as price for the seced-
ers returning to their duty. they should
have one of two offices. Street Commits
sioner, or the Treasurer and Collector. For
this slight boon. they would put away all
complaints of unparliamentary rulings and
mayoral manners. Their efforts to lash
themselves into indignation, seem ludi-
crous, when one remembers at how small
a price they offered to be placated. Their
proposal was surrender of the whole
question. Nothing having been done re-
quirng forgiveness, it is needless to say,
the proposal was not entertained.
The trouble is now over. The present
city government will continue till next
- IL