Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1879-11-17
From the Lewiston Journal.
THE COUNTING OUT'' THREATS.

We can hardly believe that any governor
and council will be so reckless as to carry
out the rumored programme of counting out
seven republican majority in the Senate and
twenty eight in the House. as declared by the
municipal officers of the several towns in
Maine on the sth of Sept, and as appears by
the official records.
To consummate such a villianous scheme,
to secure the defeat of Mr.. Davis, who had
II 900 more votes than any other candidate
for governor, would require such an utter de-
fiance of the popular WILL and such an entire
disregard of the constitution and law, as to
make the holding of an election farce, and
vest the governor and council with the power
of appointing legislature and governor.
Nothing is clearer than that the constitution
and laws make it the duty of the governor
and council-not to determine who are elect
ed according to their views of law and equity,
but to issue summonses to such senators
and representatives as the returns show to be
elected. II the returns do not agree with
the records, they may be corrected to cores
pond but there the powers of the governor
and council stop. Inquiry beyond that be-
longs to the Senate and House when organ
lied.
Not single voice has been raised to ques-
ton this Interpretation of the constitution
and laws. The fundamental law is clear.
The Supreme Court have repeatedly thus in
terpreted it. In ls45, the Court (Chief JUS
tice Whitman and Justices Shepley and Ten
ney) said: 1.-The returns alone are to be ex-
amined by the governor and council" In
1871 the full court reiterated this view. In
1875 the full court again said:
and ..,xcl opfu and AZ
amining returns of votes, and in declaring who arc
elected, act rs canvassing board. They only know
hey are mea to the Evidence daSs from the
returns transmitted to Them
The fact that the law plainly confines the
governor and council to counting the returns
as corrected by the records, is not denied.
But it is claimed that there are ''precedents'
for violation of the plain law, and therefore
they propose to follow ''precedents" rather
than the constitution. But even if there were
such ''precedents, they would not justify
clear violation of law. A is not allowed to
plead in defence Of crime, that B. violated
the same and escaped punishment.
1t is not claimed that there are ''prece-
dents" for going behind the returns from the
formation of the State in the case of Sena-
tors, or from the time the constitutional pro-
vision was adopted in 1864 in the case Of rep
resentatives, up to Gov. COnn0r's admins
tration. The unbroken line of precedents
under Cows. Fairfield Anderson, Dana, Hub
bard, Morrill,, Washburn, Coburn, Cony,
Chamberlain, Perham and Dingley are all one
way-and that in favor of the Interpretation
put on the constitution by the Supreme court.
Under Gov. Dngleys administration no less
than three democrats were summoned, not
withstanding everybody admitted the repub-
Leans were elected, because the constitution
did not allow the governor and council to 60
behind the returns.
Such an unbroken line of precedents ought
to establish the rule, even If accidentally or
otherwise there was an apparent departure in
two cases under Gov. ConnOr's administra-
tion-the one the Madigan, and the other the
Bliss case. The Madigan case was where the
governor and council regarded paper pnr-
porting to be a return, so defective that they
declined to consider it the return provided by
law. But even in this case they did not 60
to the extent Of summonsing the minority
candidate. They simply referred the case to
the Senate, without issuing summons.
The invariable practice, unless this case was
an exception, has been to count all papers
purporting to be returns, without regard to
informalities, unless they were shown to be
forgeries, or failed to give statement Of the
votes cast.
The Bliss case was where the clerk accom-
panied his return with paper stating that
his return and record were not in accordance
with the declaration of the vote by the select
men and he was allowed to correct his re-
turn to accord with the fact. at the request OF
democratic counsel We have no doubt that
the governor and council exceeded their au-
thority in doing this, and so stated when the
facts became known; but rs this stretch of
authority was in the interest of what all con-
ceded to be equity, it failed to attract atten-
ton. To use such precedent as that, to
squarely override the constitution and laws,
to unseat 30 Representatives and 7 Sena-
tors, to change the Legislature from re-
publican to a democratic majority, and to
seat a democratic governor and state officers
would be an outrage which would put .
stamp of public condemnation upon the guilty
authors and parties.
|