Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1880-11-30
OUR NEXT GOVERNOR.

The Advertiser expressed the opinion
last week that no attempt would be made
to eyade the priaa fdcie result OF the Sep
TENDER election. This prediction was sup
ported by the concurrence OF the LetriStOH
Journal the next day, and Monday the Port
land Press sustained the same view by a
very clear and cogent argument. Gov.
Davis Is quoted as declaring that the
executive department will raise no ques-
ton concerning the application Of the con
stitutional amendment, and 10 Is safe 20 say
that Il majority OF the members OF the leg
islature will take the same view OF their
duty. No other opinion has hitherto
found expression in any public manner
POrildRd Idreriissr.
The Portland Adrert,Ser is one of those
sober old sheets. which seldom attempts
TO be funny but il Is very funny without
intending 20 be. in the above. IL says
LAS, week it expressed the opinion,
THAT no attemp; would be made TO evade
the prino face result of the September
election. This prediction was supported
by the concurrence of the Lewiston Jour
uai the next day. Now It is matter
Of general no,e-and paper of the Id
rsrtiser pretensionS should not be so neg
ligent as 10 have missed the fact-that
the Lewiston Journal has advocated this
equitable and just method Of counting
ever since the election. The assumption
OF the .idrertiser that the Lewiston Jour
nal was following It's iIluStriouS example
aid enforcing It's original precepts will be
more fully appreciated by the following
quotations. On the 18th OF September,
two DAYS after the election. the Lewiston
Journal contained an article from which
we clip the following:
MANY OF our best lawyers have insisted
that that part Of II the resolve which
applies the plurality rule 10 the present
election i invalid on account OF its retro
active character. Wewere inclined 10 take
this view OF il, when II was suggested last
winter; but our Republican Legislature
regarded IL valid and submitted 1t to the
people; and we trust there will be no
attempt 70 20 back on what has been done.
II a plurality OF the people. however small
have pronounced for PlSiSted. let him nc
declared Governor.
Ten days later, on tue 18th OF Septem-
Der, in the course Of another article the
following appeared.
We trust that the Republican Legislature
will by an amendment ~ the statute Of
1876. or equivalent action, authorize The
correction OF PlaiSted'S returns 10y the ry-
cords, and thus 90 even out 0r their way
10 carry out the will OF the people. not
withStSnding it may count in mcu who
violated law 10 count out Republicans.
From that time until the middle Of
October, the Journal gave frequent a.
terence 70 such sentiments.
The journal was not alone in thus
early taking an equitable view of the
matter We thought the OXFORD DIV
oCRAr took the lead; but on referring to
our files ind that the Journal was ahead
as above quoted On the 2sth of Sep
TENDER We published an editorial article
entitled How Shall We Count which
closed as follows:
In our first quotation from the defense,
We proceeded Just far enough 20 furnish
u case exactly parallel with one In the
that votes cast for William r. Field, Dem
ocratic candidate for Senator in Cumber-
land. and returned William b. Field were
not counted for William X. Field, aud he
lost" them. II will Dc seen by the table
OF votes above presented, that PA votes
were returned for Harris II. Plaisted
Shall those votes be counted for Harris NJ.
PIaisted. or for Harris II. Plsisted accord
the question. IL not counted for Harris NJ,
his supposed plurality vanisheS. and Daniel
r. Davis has the position.
Whatever party feeling dictates-what-
ever FuSiOnistS may have maintained
whatever the people have sustained, en-
dOrsed or demanded, We believe that such
1 result would be wrong. We could IN no
wise Justify IL. nor sustain those who did
30 pervert the spirit OF our institutions.
We denounced the fraud OF 1879, not be-
cause IL was Democratic. fraud, or a
Greenback fraud. or a Fusion fraud, hut
because il WAS fraud. The wish aud will
% the majority of the people must control
all political conduct in a Republic. We
Insist that IL Is the ,odi OF the people-not
the will Of the people expressed with tech
meal accuracy which should aud shall con-
troll affairs in the States. ANY attempt 10
eyade this principle shall be CONDEMNED in
the most vigorous English We can CON-
mand. III one more man voted for the Flu
siOu candidate, no power should prevent
him from receiving his certificate aud his
seat l, Is better for the Republican party
20 take its place as an honest selfrespct-
ing minority than retain position ten miu-
utes with fraud besmirched garments.
The people viii awake some day 10 appre-
ciate the Republican position in this mat
ter We trust they will not sleep till fraud
has eaten the heart out of the Republic,
In this issue We publish in full the
Press editorial referred to in the AdUer-
tiser item which heads this article. The
Press is now wing with the AdratiSer
in It's endcavOrS 10 prove itself the great
original advocate of fairness in counting
the votes. These papers would have been
entitled 10 more credit for the honorable
position which they now occupy, if they
had put themselves on record as soon as
the facts were known. 1t would have
been better for them had they advocated a
Just count because it was right, instead OF
waiting (as il now appears until they
learned that one of Names Republican
leaders mad written letter against taking
advantage of technicalities to defeat
Plaisted. The press should lead fear
lessly when questions of right are at stake,
and not in any sense, be organs of men
or parties.