The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-12-29

character pf tho returns to detarinlns ths. re-
suit OF the election In that town. We hays
therefore rejected the returns from that town
In orr tnhtlationa, tho rejection affects the
election oftonn Representative accompanying,
mud attached tp tho Representatives raturpea
From tho town uf Skowhesau there wnf N
| statement agned by tho selsetmen that n cor
iaiu number Of ballots were protested MS bn-
Ing Illegal. under nnrtipn 81 chapter 4, of tho
lsnVlaai Htntutna Dns nf Tho ballots OhiRcLMA
to was attached to Tho returns. Tho aslnet4
rnan In their rartiirnte nsge how mnuy 81
such ballots were thrown out and In thslI
| certificate they Inform tho Governor and
Council TINT thny make tho return subject
| 10 Tho legality OF illeGaIIty pf TINT kind III
~ ballot Tho ballot was IN the shape oF an
ordinary sh"at Of pnIer folded to make twp
leaves. on ono page onahHlf pf Tho enndi~
| 'lntrs wNfn printed md on the other pnge the
balance nf tho names Of tho candidates np-
penr We nre fully satisfied khat Tint kind
of ballot II clearly In violation Of Tho letiaF
and spirit ~ the Foregoing Iatnsd statute.
| and VS. hnye accordingly rejected u number
of bnlloiH In making our Labulation. pro-
teat waa iii0h against tho rules FROM Tho town
of Ghefr Yield on tho ground tint the officers
who ntfFairi the RETURNS were not lHnal Off
| GERS Tho aiIidavIfa presented with the protest
| nstnbllal,es tho fact thai moi ono legal select
| man urosldrd nj tho making out oi tho returns
md Tho receiving II Tho VOTES. One uf tho
solsctmstl foreigner aud could not
legally hold thn olIlcs If anlectmhn, Tho Au-
potlnt Courts have held thai the board Of
town oIlifera. consisting Ut not less thnD
three. Is not n legn board. Acting on this
opinion. wa have rejected The returns TrorFs~
tho town Ut GhntrYllpld THIS atfegta tho
election " Tho lsell esentntlv"s several pro-
tests and afIlIavifs In support wern rs-
frrfod tp lis. nsking tho rejection III the
rptIrns on nenoliui of bribery and iptlmda-
tlnn uf voters and pf legal IsfNcis In calling
tho town neatlug. nso account pf I'm
proper check lists. Tho rppiea ~ tho record
p'osonird to ns from the town ~ Skowegan
show that fof the election In That town unly
ona copy pf tho warrant wns posted. and tho
r"epya inss not show that ono was posted In
the town. Objection 10 counting tho vote OF
tho city of Auburn was made because tho
vntera added ~ tho check lists In three of tho
wards In violation ~ Tho law whiln voting
was going on. On election day nffitgyitH
liIed fully eatabIIshe,l Tint Fact Other atfi-
dnylt5 show tho Ennn condition uf things in
other eltins Wa consider thnse raels ae moi
legally engnl4aha hy iha Govornor and Gonn-
ell 40 ranyarsiuE board, and We have ilsro-
gnrt'rd ihem IN our tnbulntou W. recon-
nend tho rGfefenen oF nll such papers bu tho
ln4l#nlrlfo
tetHrns from Portland nre defective bs.
caus" they do not comply with tho ,nHtitn-
tlpna fr,Iliirmoiita which proyldas that Tim
nnu,ne ~ Ell I,,taons rnenlvlng votes shall be
EthtHl In their returns. a InTgs Hlinlbnr OF
Ynta,s vnfe r"tntned Ftrn said city ns "soaf~
feftng. md ihnfe was no pesslblN fnGnns hE-
t"tl"d by tho returns 10 determine for whom
such votes wato thrown.
liNufus from the eli iea of SaGD. IGWiatlIl
i'ntnnHd itoGktnud nr0 fatally detective, bs4
ehIsH they were nol signed by n nHjprlty of
Tho aldermen. Under tho Gthtntes mud by
decisions of tho courts such returns cannot
-" counted. nnl We hnye hnen Obliged t6 reject
them. IL will tlHgplvs on the llunaa nF keprs.
Eontafvrs H. dntrrnlna In tho FIRST Instance,
mud lilnllY Who have been elected tp tho
llaHGe from iit"sn ritiNa. MS NO hnvs no legal
evidence hefntn rs 10 deternins that que5.
tinn