Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1880-01-27

CHARLES DANroKrH,
JOIN A. PETERS,
ARTENAs LIRREY,
JOSEPH W. SyMoNps.
January s, 1850.
We ask every intelligent person who
reads the above opinions to mark the giar-
ing inconsistency between them. We have
no desire 10 animadyert upon such q con-
iict of the Opinions" of the learned court,
which to Us seems little less than judicial
lunacy.
The above language of the judges has
been published in nearly all the fhSIo"
papers, intending to convey the impression
70 thsir readers that the Court had reversed
its opinion, for partisan purposes. But II
they will examine the opinion In the eS
Me. Rept. page Ss7-s, from which the above
Language is quoted, and compare 1t with
the opinion given Jan. 8, they will find no
conflict OF opinions, and no 'glaring in
consistency between them" The opinion
given in Dec, 1877, was In answer to the
following questions, proposed by the Exec
utiye Councils
81. Can the Governor and Council. in the
performance OF their duty To ascertain
what county officers were elected az tDe
general election in September, lawfully
count the votes Of town, the return or
which bears the signature of one OF the
selectmen. aud the names OF the two other
selectmen written by other hands than
their own
40 Can the Governor and Council, in the
performance OF their duty In counting the
votes for county officers, lawfully count
the votes OF a town, the return OF which
is not attested by the town clerk
Both OF the above questions were an
swered in the negative, and in their opin-
ion, the court use the language referred To
above. in response 10 the tirst question
/. e, To the signatures of the selectmen;
aud In ANSWER 70 the eleventh question
submitted by GOV. Garcelou, referring 10
the genuineness Of the returns, the Court
substantially reafirsn their former opinion,
given in ls75 They say,
The Go.ernor and Council have no
right 10 reject the returns for such cause
without giving the parties interested there
IN a fair opportunity TO be heard.
They hold that the return which does not
bear the genuine signature Of the Select
men Is not 70 be rejected simply because
Councillor Fogg thinks one man wrote all
the signatures but the same rules Of evil
dence shall be applied ~ in other cases;
The Governor and Council should be
governed IN the admission Of evidence, by
the established rules Of evidence. In accor-
dance with the Law of this State.
The fifth question submitted by Gov.
Garcelon was. in substance, the same as
the Second question submitted in -iss7.
The answer OF the Court, dan. ), 1850
was as follows;
ssRetnrns from towns ana cities which
are not attested by the town, plantation or
city clerk. are 10, valid. The atiestailon
OF the CLERK is q prerequisite 10 any action
OF the Governor and Council N counting
votes, g. Maine, SIS"
Here the Court refer to their former
opinion. between which and the recent one
such "glaring inconsistency exists, and
directly reaffrm il. The language which
the fusion papers quote. nom the sns~ei
TO the first question of GOV. Garcelon,
when taken in connection with the rest OF
the answer, Is not in direct conflict with
the rest OF the opinion. The substance of
Gov. Gareeions nrst question Vas, whether
il was the duty OF the Governor and Cogn-
ell TO order "A new election, when they
decided there was ''no return from city
on which Representatives can be summon
ed To attend aud take their seats III the
Legislature" or whether IL was ''coblpe-
ten, for the House of Representatives, II
il should appear that there had been an
election OF sucn Repres entatives, TO admit
them 10 seats, though no return was made
aud delivered 20 the Office Of the Secretary
az State The Court decided that the
Governor AUD Council should not order
new election in such case, bali that 1t was
the duty of the House 10 admit the Repre-
sentative 20 seat In this answer they
say:
The Representative Is not 10 be de-
prived OF his rights because municipal OIL
Gers have neglected their duty
Upon careful examination Of the two
opinions, YOU can md no Inconsistency"
but on the other hand perfect hasInony.
The Representative is not TO be deprived
of his right. Why Because the House
of Representatives, duly elected, should
admit him 10 his seat, they having the right
to go back Of the return and enquire
whether an election had been held or not.
1t is not at all surprising that the fusion
lists should have no respect for the laws OF
the State, because law is founded upon
Justice, and Justice is what they fear
NO rogue e'er felt the halter draw
With good opinion OF the law"
W.
SoUNp IN LAw.--He (the GOVERNOR
s.,,,,,,, 40 kaua icSe Siohf of the great gu