Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1880-08-10

Al do not think Ibid.
Q-Where was thisf
Ain the Council Room.
Q.--Any others OF the Council PRESENT.
A.-There were two or three; l think
that Mr.. Brown was present and | think
Mr. Monroe was present. They were not
doing any business; IL was not session
OF the Council; but there were two or
three Councillors aside from Mr.. Foster;
| do not know but Mr.. Chase was In the
Council Room part OF the time.
Q.-were they within hearing, and lis
tening TO your Conversations E ~
Al do not know that they were; Mr.
Foster and sat down ut the Council table,
and he got these returns and sat down by
me and we examined them together, he
passing them to me. 80
O-Do the same remarks apply to the
return from Brownfield? did you call any
body's attention TO that return except Mr..
Fosters?
A.-No, do not think did.
Q.-To any person outside of the Coun-
Al mentioned the fact outside.
o. mean there was no other person
to whom you showed it!
Al think not.
| BE- Nr. HI:
Q.-what time in the season was II you
were there?
A.-The eighth of December, Monday
evening.
By Nr. Ingalls,:
Q.-was the Governor present:
A.--No; | should say not.
BucKFrILD AND BRowNFIELD.
In relation to these two towns, the
Hall Committee report as follows
The forgery in the return for county Of
ncers of the town of Brownileld, In OXFORD
county, seems 10 be a matter OF greater
skill aud premeditation- On the eightil
day of December this return was examined
| i'm the presence of john b. Foster OF The
| Council, BY Hon. l.. c. Harrington oiFTio-
burg, and the discovery was made that
neither the name of the town OF brown-
field, nor the county Of Oxford, appeared
anywhere upon the face OF the return, all
the blanks leit for this purpose remaining
untitled. The attention OF the Council was
expressly called TO this defect, and the fact
that IL existed appeared III the D.i"''
! Democrat Of DeccmbeT 18th, 1917. u now
appears that the names oil the town ana
county have been written in since th1'
time. i'm = hand designed 20 initiate the
body Of the rrtarn. The assistance OF an
expert In handwriting was called in who
! pronounced II forgery, executed with
some skill. hut Vet too clumSily done 10 de-
ccive guv one Your Committee wished 10
place the matter beyond question, ana
I summoned b. Bean. Esq, chairman oi
the Sclcctmcl OF BrowuHc'd, who WFo'c
/ the body OF the return, and Who testiheu
| without he itation that the words - VIII
ten in were not in his handwriting, mt
were rorgeries Your Committee cannot
! state wi,cSe hand inserted these words,
/ bu; IL /. clear tina: tie forgery Was done
while the return was ia the hands a. the
! Governor and Council, because the votes
shown by the return were tabulatcd ~ II
no defect existed The fusion majority IN
Browndcld was SiNty-I"ur.
The return OF the town OF Buckdeld in
Oxford county, for county officers, was
another instance OF the fraudulent addition
| OF the maize O. NE town in case where
| the blanks for town and county were un-
filled. 80 that nothing on the face of the re-
turn showed from whence IL came. With
out stating all the testimony, your Com
mittce believe il 20 bc conclusive that this
addition was fraudulcntly made after the
/ return came 10 Augusta, and the result was
tina, the Fusion majority OF more than one
hundred and thirty votes was coInted-
| The two returns OF Browntcld aud Buck
! field were necessary 10 the election OF the
Fusion county officers OF that county. In
these eases also the magniiying glass dis
closes the trembling writing which usually
laccomIcu.eg cases OF forgery.
The Councils pretended defense in
this matter is as follows:
The Hale committee claim that In the re-
! turns for county officers from the towns OF
| Buckfcld aud Browntleld the names of the
1 towns have been written in BY some one
| since they we're received AT Augusta, so
| that now they show what towns they came
| from aud that before this change was made
there was nothing To show where the pa
pers came from. What possible motive
I any member OF the Council could have had
| 10 make these corrections, IL Is difficult 10
understand. In the first place each one OF
\ the returns came enclosed in official en-
yeiopes which contained on their face
certificate signed by the municipal officers,
telling what the return was and what town
| IL came from Then there was filing writ
ten on the back OF the return by one OF the
municipal officers showing what town 1t
came from In the next place the Cover
nor and Council considered all the returns
for county officers whose elections were
regulated Nv statute 20 he correctable un-
der the law of 1877. In no single instance
| did they refuse TO allow these corrections
10 be made when there was return proper
IL signed, and under this law they corrected
the returns for several Republican candi-
dates Tor county officers. when, ifsuch cor
rections had noe been made, they would
have been defeated. We have nc TeCo.iec-
ton about the returns from these two
towns. FIVE could see them we might be
able 10 form some opinion a. 10 whether
any words have been inserted. We shall
presume In the absence of evidence 10 the
| contrary, that the town officers did their
duty ana properly Elled up these blanks.
1t will be seen that they do not deny
that these additions have been made, but
first question what motive could have in
duced them to make such forgeries, de-
claring that 1.-THE Governor and Council
considered all returns for County Officers
Is = correctable under the law
oflS77." onpage Is Of this same ode
Tense they say I'm the county of Lin
coin the Fusionists lost county officer
by reason ola defect in one of the returns. !"
Herein we find a motive in their own
testimony for the forgeries- They had
lust counted out one Of their own men in
Lincoln County, and did not want TO re-
| roo. ,bo oooration an Oyford