The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1879-12-30
SOME QUESTIONS
For Gov. earcelon to Answer Tonight.

This evening Gov Garcelon appears in his
own defense at City Hall. In his plea so fal
he has carefully avoided treating of details,
contenting hims elf with the general assertion
that he has obeyed the constitution and the
laws, has acted in no partisan spirit, and has
been governed in his course by mandatory
statutes that left him no discretion. 1t is to be
regretted that the only proof he adduces is
his own affirmation. He has utterly failed to
meet the Indictment preferred against him by
public opinion and has only entered general
demurrer.
There are specified instances in which the
canvassing board have, many people in this
State believe. done wrong and injustice some
times under the forms of law, sometimes with
out ever the color of legality. OF these acts
no satisfactory explanation has yet been made
and no valid defense offered. In order to
give Governor Garcelon an opportunity to
Justify them and his action the PRESS respect
fully submits the following questions to him,
hoping that his answer will be made to the
people of Portland this evening:
1. When you saw that the non-enforcement
of a law on the statute book would result in
overturning the result OF an election, as it had
been understood and accepted throughout the
country, why did you not apply to the Supreme
Court for an opinion regarding that law? Why
did you seek the advice of lawyers instead of
the advice of the Court? Did you think The
public would be as well satisfied Of your honor
and integrity if you acted OH the opinion OF
lawyers whose name are not even known, as if
you acted under the advice of the Supreme
Court?
2. You applied to the Supreme Court for a
decision of the question of double mileage.
Why did you not take the advice of ''the
ablest counsel in the State" in preference to
the Courts, in that case.
3. You say the returns had not been seen
by any one up to the time that the count be-
gan except by the committee of the Council on
tabuating them. Could not the returns have
been examined by a hundred persons, and you
know nothing about it, while they were in
possession Of that committee?
4. Your party friends have frequently
alleged that the returns from Democratic
towns were remarkably correct because their
officers had been taught by Republican councils
to be careful; you, on the contrary have as
serted that there were as many Democratic
returns, or nearly as many, with errors in
them as Republican. Can you give any
reason why those Democratic errors all occur
red where they did not affect the result, while
almost every Republican error lost Republic
can representative? Councillor Fogg attri-
butes this fact to the interpostion of the Great
Jehovah. Do you take the same view of it?
8. 1t was generally understood until within
few days that the Pennington return was
thrown out because tue ballots exceeded the
votes In the report of the committee of the
Council made public Saturday Pennington is
alleged to have been thrown out because the
returns were not made up in open town meet
ing. Did the letter of the clerk of Pennington
explaining the reason that the ballots exceeded
the votes have anything to do with this SEEM
ing change of base? For whatever cause
thrown out was not the action of the Council
based on exparte testimony entirely, and was
the Republican representative notified that
there was any defect in the Pennington re-
turn or that anybody claimed that there was?
6. The Constitution says that the Governor
and Council shall ascertain from the returns
who shall appear to be elected. Could you not
ascertain from the Portland returns who dp-
peared to be elected? Nay, more, could you not
ascertain beyond all shadow of doubt who
were elected? Didn't you rely on statute to
throw out Portland and why did it happen
that you were so certain about tie constitution
ality of that statute when you were so ready
to declare another statute with the same legis-
lative sanction unconstitutional? Did the
effect statute was likely to have on the
result of the count have any weight with you
in determining whether it was constitutional
or not?
r What lawyer advised you that return
signed by deputy clerk was good while a
S. 1t is true or is it false that George ID.
Bisbee of Buckfed offered to prove that the
returns from that town bore the names of the
selectmen all signed by one and the same per-
son, and, if true, did you or did you not neglect
to pay any attention to his offer, notwithstand-
ing Republican towns were thrown out for the
identical defect which Mr.. Bisbee alleged?
8. You threw out the Republican town of
Newburg because the name Of the town was
not on the return and because it could only be
recognized by the name on the outside. Were
not the returns from the towns Of Buckfield
and Brownfeld in precisely the same condi-
ton and if so why were they not thrown out?
10. You say you have followed judicial
decisions in your count. What judicial deci-
cision did you follow in refusing to count
votes thrown for John Burnam for John Burn
ham; or in counting votes for Afford Cushman
for Alfred Cushman?
II. You threw out Republican towns be-
cause the ballots exceeded the votes. Must
not the ballots sometimes exceed the votes?
How could it be otherwise if some of the cleo
tors cut some OF the names on the ticket.
What able counsel advised you to throw out
returns for this reason?
IL. You and your Council say that you have
had the best legal advice obtainable. Please
state what lawyer advised the throwing out of
the Skowhegan return? Also what lawyer
counselled the disfranchisement of Cherry
field?
10. What astute member of your Council