The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1879-12-31

TO minority candidate would still leave
clear plurality to another candidate, and if
30 defective on it's face can it be counted by
tho reo0rd2 The case referred TO is that Of
the city of Portland.
Fourth-If . return has not the signature
Of tho town clerk, Is in the case of Lebanon
and Albion, can Q duly attested CODY of the
record be substituted therefor, and the vote
be legally oounted2
Fifth-Have tho governor and council
any right to reject return, bearing the
personal signature of the clerk and maiori-
ty of the municipal officers. because from
evidence aluinde they are satisfied it was
not signed or sealed in open town meeting,
or was signed by the selectmen in blank It
the meeting and, after adjournment, filled
IN by the clerk, or because if one Of the
eelectmen signed the return in blank, filling
IN the name OF the town and of the county
before the town meeting, the other two
signing and sealing in open town meeting
the alleged cases of Jay, Stoneham, Lisbon
and other towns are referred to). Or be-
cause the return was sent to the
secretary of states Office unsealed, as ia
alleged IN the case of Searsport, or
because the record specified in the constitu-
zion, ar.lcle four, part one, section five, was
not mace up IN the presence of the select
men and IN open town meeting as is
alleged In the cases of Webster, Lisbon and
other towns, especially if a written Mono
randum of the persons voted for, with the
number of votes for each person against his
name, is made by the clerk in the presence
of the selectmen, and in open town meeting.
though not put upon the record book of the
town until after the meeting adjourned. Or
because one of the seelctmen signing is an
alien as alleged in the case of CherryfieId,
all the other signatures being regular
the all respects. Or because
the de facto officers who sign
In returns from any cause were not legally
chosen, and were disqualified from holding
the Office. Or because the return is attested
by clerk pro tempore as in the case of
Vanceboro. Or by a deputy clerk as in the
case OF Scarboro. Or because q second re-
turn was sent to the secretary of state differ:
ing from the first in the numbers of votes
returned for the various candidates. under
the facts of the Greenfield case.
Have the governor and council any RIGHT
to receive evidence on either of the above
points, and if 80, on which?
Slxth-1s it competent for the governor
and council, when q return states the names
OF persons voted for and the number of
votes for each, and each signature is genuine
to admit evidence dliunde as to any neglect
of town officers before town meeting to
comply with any of the various require
ments of the constitution and laws?
Seventh-Is it the duty of the governor
and council, or have they the right, to reject
return because the whole number of bal.
lots is not stated therein, as in Otter6eld and
other towns, or because the whole number
of ballots differ from the sum of votes re-
turned for the several candidates, as in the
case of Far nington and other towns.
Eighth-Has ballot with the names of
candidates printed in two columns instead
of one, Distinguishing mark within the
meaning of the statute so that it should not
be received into the ballot box? If so re-
ceived and returned, is it the duty of the
governor and council to count it even if q
protest with specimen ballot is annexed
and sealed up with the return by the select
men and the return made subject to the
legality of the ballot as alleged in the case
of Skowhegan.
Ninth-Should votes returned as cast for
Jno. Durham and John Burnam be counted
for the same or two different persons, or
votes returned for Alfred or Afford Cush-
man, or for James w. Clark or James w.
Clarke, or John T. Wallace or John T. Wal
lace, Jr.?
Tenth-H the vote of the first candidate
named ii q return is carried out in letters
and figures, and the votes of the three sue
ceeding candidates are indicated by ditto
marks, should the, votes returned for the
last three candidates be rejected. If any
defect exists in such q return is it correct
able by the records.
Eleventh. the governor and
council the right to reject . return on the
ground that two or more of the signatures
were forged or written by one hand, merely
on an inspection of the return itself without
evidence from either of the officers purport-
ing to sign, as in the case of Webster, Lis
bon, New Sharon and other towns, or have
they the right to reject such returns or any
evidence submitted by one party alone
without first giving notice to the other
party and giving him the right to introduce
counter evidence, or have they the right to
act on or consider any protests, afidavits or
papers outside of the returns
unless upon point that the signatures of the
subscribing officers were not affixed with
their own hands, or have they the right t
reject any return on account of such protest,
afhdavits, or papers taken ex parte and filed
by one party without the knowledge of the
other, without first giving to such adverse
party notice and the right to introduce coun-
ter evidence.
Twelfth-Should the returns Herewith
annexed, from the town of Go ldsboro, be
counted for Oliver P. Bragdon, or Oliver
B. Bragdon, all other towns in the same
| class being returned for Oliver P. Bragdon?
Thirteenth-When the governor and
| council decide that there is no return from
city or town on which Representative
| can be summoned to the legislature, is it
their duty to take such steps as will insure
| the voters of such city or town new cleo
ton, by which they can secure Representa-
tive in the legislature? CThe cases of five
disfranchised cities are referred to-
Fourteenth-Have the governor and
| council the right, and is it their duty to re-
! call any certificate of election Improperly or
| erroneously issued to any Senator or Rep
resentative, or if they cannot recall Ger