Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1879-12-29

Jaw. Stoneham. LISBON anu olher toNHs are
referred to.
Or, because thereturn was sent to the Secre-
of States office unsealed, as is alleged in the
case of Searsport?
Or, because the record specified in the con-
stitution. Art. 4, Part l, Sec 8, was not made
up i'm the presence of the selectmen and in
open town meeting, as is alleged in the cases
of Webster Lisbon and other towns?
Especially if a written memorandum 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 till after
the meeting adjourned.
Or, because one of the selectmen signing
is an alien. as is alleged in the case of Cherry
field, all other signatures being regular in all
respects, or because the defacto officers, who
sign the return from any cause were not le-
gally chosen or were disqualified from hold
ing the Office!
Or, because the return is attested by
clerk '.protempore' as in the case of Vance
boro, or by deputy clerk as in the case
of Scarboro'?
Or. because a second return was sent to
the Secretary of State, differing from the
first, in the number of votes returned for the
various candidates, under the facts of the
Fairfield case.
Have the Governor and Council any right
to receive evidence on either of the above
points, and if SO on which!
Sixth-Is it competent for the Governor and
Council when return states the names OF
the persons voted for, and the number Of
votes for each. and each signature is genuine,
to admit evidence alunde as to any neglect
in the town officers before or at the town
! IN wit of
requirements 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 ballots
is not stated therein as in Otisfeld and other
towns.
Or, because the whole number of ballots
stated differs from the sum of the votes re-
turned for the several candidates as in the
case of Pennington and other towns!
Eighth-Has a ballot with the names of the
candidates printed in two columns instead of
one a Distinguishing mark within the mean
ing of the statute so that it should not be re-
cevcd into the ballot-box?
If so received and returned is it the duty
of the Governor and Council to count it. even
| if protest with specimen ballot is annexed
to, and sealed up with, the return by the Sc
lectmen, 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
John Burnham and John Burnam be counted
for the same, or two different persons?
| Or votes returned for Alfred Cushman and
Afford Cushman?
Or. for James W. Clark and James W.
Clarke, or for John T. Wallace and John T.
Wallace, Jr.?
Are these and all other errors in the names
and initials of the persons voted for correcti-
Bile by the record!
Tcnth-If the vote of the first candidate
named in return is carried out in letters
and figures and the vote of the three succeed
ing candidates is indicated by ditto marks,
thus:
Henry {. Brewer, freeport,
David Duran, CascO. 4"
Andrew Halves, DeeriDE,
Should the votes returned for the last three
candidates be rejected in totos
If any defect exists in such return is it
correctible by the record?
Eleventh-Have 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 inspection of
the return itself, without evidence from
either of the officers purporting to sign, as in
the cases of Webster, Lisbon, New Sharon
and other townsg
Or have they the right to reject such re-
turn on 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, afiidavits or papers outside Of
the returns unless upon the point that the
signatures of the subscribing officers were not
affixed with their own hand?
Or have they the right to reject any return
on account of such protests, afhdavits, or
papers taken exparte and filed by one party
without the knowledge of the other, without
first giving to such adverse party notice and
the right to introduce counter evidence?
Twelfth-Should the return herewith an
nexed from the town of GOuldsboro,
be counted for Oliver p. Bragdon or
Oliver b. Bragdon, all the other towns in the
same class being returned for Oliver Z. Brag-
don?
thirteenth When the Governor and
Council decide that there is no return from a
city or town in which a Representative can
be summoned to the Legislature, is it their
duty to take such steps as will insure to the
voters of such city or town a new election by
which they can secure representation in the
legislature? The cases of the five disfran-
chised cities are referred to.
Fourteenth-IIave the Governor and Coun-
Gil the right and is it their duty to recall any
certificate of election improperly or errone-
ously issued to any senator or representa-
tive?
Or, if they cannot recall a certificate, have
they the right, and is it their duty, to issue a
new certificate to the person entitled thereto,
under this opinion of the court!
Ex-Governor Dinglcy's Address at
the Lewiston Indignation Meet
ing.
We are here tonight for the purpose of ex-
pressing our condemnation of the action of
the Governor and Council of Maine in their
capacity as canvassers of returns. whereby
! Al. Ii. Eal. 4 IL