The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1879-12-30
Garcelon's Defense.
A Review of the Governors Law end
Logic.
THE ACT OLE 1877

THE ACT OF 1877.
| 4. Mr. Garcelon quotes the opinion OF the
| Court as follows:
1.-THE names of the officers signing the re-
| turns must be written with their own hands"
! 6S, Me. 587,
| This authority declares the right of the
| Governor and Council to Investigate that TACT,
| but does it constitute them experts in hand
| acritiag and authorize them to arbitrarily re-
| iect return, upon mere inspection?
Their skill as experts is only excelled by
| their ability to construe laws For while
these eight versatile patriots unanimously
decide that the returns from the towns of Lis
bon and Webster were respectively signed by
one person, it appears by the sworo statements
of the municipal officers themselves that each
man signed his oacn name.
5. Notwithstanding the length OF Mr.. Gar
celon's apology. it is to be observed that he
specifies only taco particular instances in which
returns were rejected, viz:
Where persons were voted for by Initials
and full names in which cases the votes must
be counted as for two different persons in ac-
cordance with the opinion of the Court as re-
corded in GA Me-. p. sos, and which was given
III DOOOAIoOI, 1919. LII billo OplhlOu tAiO oouisj
referring to County officers, say:
whether further enlargement of their
powers may not be expedient is matter for
the consideration of the legislature"
Againyryerri,ag to Senator'S and Representa-
tues:
"But this act Or. S., CHI 49, sec. 81 gives no
power to correct the errors which may exist IN
the returns OF votes of Senators"
In accordance with this suggestion of the
Court the legislature of 1876 enlarged the pow
ers Of the Governor and Council, so that, an
the case Of County officers, such votes might all
be cosnted as for one person, if manifestly SO
intended by the voter.
The legislature of 1877 (perhaps in conse-
quence of the language of the, Court last above
quoted which may have been construed as an
intimation that they had the authority so to do)
amended the former statute allowing certain
corrections and amendments in returns for
County officers, by extending the provisions
thereof to the cases Of Senators ddd RepreSeqa-
tati0es; and this act further provided that SIN
all cases When q return is defectige, By reason
of any inJormality, a duly attested copy Of the
record may be substituted THEREFOR"
recording to existing statutes therefore,
nearly if not quite all of the so-called defects
of which we have thus far treated, acre cdpa-
bic Of correction.
But the Governor says that according to ''hiS
oacn .judgn,ent", and the advise of ''tbe best
legal talent an the State the law of 1877 is IN
constitutional.
1t is not my purpose at present to discuss the
accuracy of his conclusion; q single suggestion
may perhaps be noted IF The return mentioned
IN the Constitution IS IN fact required to be a
copy Of the record, acAy, If such return contains
some clerical error so that 1t IS not correct
copy, should ii be unconstitutional to substitute
copy achich IS accurate2 But without dis
cussiEg the question pass to consideration
of the propriety of Mr.. Garcelon's assuming to
declare recently enacted law to be.unconsti-
tutional.
The Court of this state have said:
'All acts of the legislature are presumed to
be constitutional until the contrary is clearly
shoaUn< No Court will declare an act uncon-
stitutional, when its constitutionality is a mat
ter of doubt"
Opinion of Court 6S Me. $50.
In practice no single Judge will even so de-
eide, but will always rule in favor of its con-
stitutionality and thus refer the question to the
JuH court SltJlnS III Dane.
The Constitution has authorized the Gov
ernor to invoke the opinion of the Court upon
any occasion as to legal questions. Yet Mr..
Garcelon has elected to call to his aid "the
best legal talent in the State at his own (?)
expense or that of the State ~ Or more likely
of his party, for the purpose Of rendering
partisan decision where the rights Of many in
dividuals were involved eUen to the extent Of
u1,constitational!ti When an Executiv e
thus overrides the legislative and judicial de-
partments of the government, it is evident
that his purpose is to defeat and not to do JUS
tice. # Mr. Garcelon feels that he has been
571Sutted by p0l5ticidllS, 2Chdt does he think Of
his o,on course to,oard the judiciary Of the
State, aO1tone he has ignored aid aob0se proUinee
he has if,Uoded}
1t is no act of negligence, but it is deliber-
ate and intentional insult.
6. Mr.. Garcelon says, with great magnani-
nifty:
''Let it be remembered that the decision of
the Governor and Council is not fnal,'
and he refers the parties interested to the
Senate and House of Representatives, where
they may be heard bgtore a jury selected by til c
counsel for the adgerSe pcrty. And that jury
made up an part Of those aoho haze received the
goods stolen By the thief are 10 mete out justice
to the oayners Of the goods ~
Comment is unnecessary. LEX.