The Portland daily press., 1880-01-01

indeed the same name. Gov. Gareelon expressed
his surprise at the revelation, said he had never be-
fore heard of the facts AMI said that it should be
| corrected. Mr. Powers pointed out that Il both
were counted or both rejected Burnham would IN
either event be elected. He urged prompt rever-
sal of the decision, recall of the summons from
| Cushman and the issuing of new one to Burnham.
He left the Governor and Council with the full be-
done. The Council did not taBG up the matter till
Saturday last and they then decided that votes for
| Afford Cushman could not be counted for Alfred
Cusbman and they adhered TO their former decision
| that votes for Burnam could not be counted for
Burnham and left Mr. Burnham elected by seven
| teen majority. But the Council would not accept
this conclusion and to avert it they resorted to
very singular process The town OF Jersey oe,Png
| and one for Cushman and had been so counted,
| tabulated and declared by the Governor and Coun-
Gil in their official examination. They now look 1t
up afresh and person skilled in the counting OF
Aroostook averred that the names OF the second ana
| third selectmen were written in the same hand,
| namely that of the third selectman. But that
would not do alone for that left two genuine sigma
lures that of the first and third selectmen and left
| the return good. Mr.. William Dickey OF Fort Kent
then informs the public that the first selectman was
an alien and that Mr.. COUNCILLOR Parker knew al
| about it. When Mr. Councillor Parker was present
al the time the vote of Jersey was counted he con
Cured insregarding it regular and legal, but now
| with Mr.. Councillor Parker one hundred miles
| away in Aroostook the valuable statement of Mr..
| William Dckey as to what Parker knew and could
tell if he present is accepted as conclusive on
| the important issue of DISTINGUISHING town and
| changing the Representative of district. of all
the actions of the Governor and Council this last is
| regarded as the most extraordinary and indefensi-
| BILE. To accept hearsay evidence on fact outside
| the returns and which the Supreme Court in GA
Maine, 5s8 have decided is not open to evidence
| is novel process of destroying the franchise of
| suffrage of ali entire town.
| HARRINGTON.
| The town of Pennington casting vote of S42, is
| rlassed with the plantation of Perkins, casting
| Pennington gave the Republican candidate 36 ma
orty; Perkins plantation gave the fusion candidate
aona BE- it was possible in
the fusion candidate by vote of IA to l3 in total
| vote of II from Perkins plantation. The return
from Pennington stood thus
| Whole number of ballots S42.
| Charles A. Thomas had four hundred and thirty
Lewis Voter had four hundred and one GOD
| votes.
The sum total of these votes is 93S.
The sum total of the ballots is stated at 842. On
the pretext of this discrepancy the Governor and
Council rejected the return, disfranchiscl Farming
| ton and counted in the man who was not elected,
| though in the Democratic town of Maysville, in
Aroostook county. the whole number Of ballots is
161. while the sum of the votes is 1872 and still the
| return is counted in. The Governor and Council
| profess to follow the Constitution and nothing else.
| But the Constitution nowhere requires the whole
| number ballots to be stated. Under the Consti-
tuition them return could be rejected even if the
whole number of ballots not stated at all; still
| less if enormously stated Worse than this. the
| whole number of ballots in Pennington not
roneously stated but in fact exactly as the re-
| turn states-four more than the whole number of
|
ute (R. s., c. A, 32) which requires the whole num-
| Der Of ballots to be stated commands also that all
blank ballots shall be recorded and returned and
by the testimony of the clerk of Pennington it
appears that four blank ballots for Representatives
were cast in addition to the 93S cast for the two
| opposing candidates, SO that the return accorded
| not only with the strictest law but with the most
literal fact. Moreover to the statute which thus
| adds to return a requirement unknown to the
Constitution, its validity might well be doubted by
Governor and Council which is exercising at pleas
ure the powers of the Supreme court, especially
when the reason for the enactment of such statute
| has long since passed away. The statute enact
ed when majority of votes was required to elect,
and therefore the whole number of ballots was nee
essary to determine the result. Now the same offc-
chosen by plurality only and it is an ancient
maxim of justice and the law that 1.-THE law ceases
| with the reason which it is based'
Is it due to these obvious and insuperable objec-
lions that in the second report of the committee of
the Council giving the towns disfranchised and the
| reasons therefor, the committee class Farming
ton among those towns where the record or the re-
| turn was not made up in open town meeting? What
evidence had they of this or from whom? 1t certain
ly does not appear by the return-whlch IS perfect
on its face and if the Constitution is to be their
guide the Constitution orders them to issue the GER
ticates to the person who appears by the return to
be elected-and the Supreme Court of this State has
repeatedly decided that under the Constitution and
no law has changed it in that respect; they can re-
ceive no evidence outside of that return except to
| prove that the signatures affixed are not genuine
1Opinion of the Justices ca Maine, $50, 500. In
| this case the return was proved not to have been
signed by the clerk in open ward meeting and never
to have been sealed This is so exactly applica
|
| found in the report: AT the meeting in ward five
in Ellsworth the votes were declared and the meet
| ing adjourned without delay After said meeting
| was adjourned the ward clerk made out the returns
! which were signed by the warden and the clerk but
sealed. The deposition of the ward clerk taken
| oath shows that he carried the returns unseaed
until nine O'Clock Tuesday morning when, not being
able to find the city clerk get into the city clerks
| office to deliver them he gave them to another gem
tieman, unsealed, who subsequently delivered them
| to the city clerk. The fist question submitted to
| the the court by the Governor and Council was
'Were the votes cast at the said meeting as above
| stated legal within the meaning of the law?
The court in their reply say:
There are many rregnarlties ana illegalltles III
the proceeding to which the question proposed re-
lates and which assumed to be capable of proof
but unless they appear in the return signed by the
| proper officers the return must be counted
How they in disfranchising Harrington acted
| without evidence some secret pape. taken
parte filed without notice and secluded to this day
from the Republican candidates Certain it is that
the town clerkof Pennington has twice made appli-
cation, once in person and once by counsel, for
copy of such paper if any there be. and none has
| been furnished
In this district, appears by the face Of the re-
| was honestly elected. Mr.. Eaton is counted out
and his opponent, Jason c.. White, counted in by
meagre majority This has been done by disfran-
ground for this alleged in the official report of
the Executive. is that the RETURN which is perfect
on its face, not signed and sealed in open town
meeting. This the return does not show and by
the constitution and by the decision of the court
above quoted, the Governor and Council nave no
right to hear evidence upon it. Opinion OF the
Justices ga Maine $3.50 But again defying the
constitution and the decisions of the court, Gov.
Garcelon strikes out whole town from any voice
in the choice either of Senators of Representatives
although the return is on its face in strict conform
ity to law on evidence accessible to party alone
taken, filed and passed on without notice to the
town or the Representative affected.
WEBSTER, LISBON AND DURHAM.
The three towns of Webster, Lisbon and Durham
constitute representative district. Webster and
utg,,o hnnh N Ia1 m m n II
Thomas. Durham alone gave Democratic majority
Leonard II. Beal smaller than either of the other
two. 1t was impossible in that district to defeat
the candidate whom the people had chosen without
throwing out both Republican towns. The returns
from the three towns were absolutely correct on
their face and showed the election of the Repub-
can representative by clear majority. Searching
for an expedient it occurred to Mr.. Fogg and the
other gentlemen of the Council that the signatures
of the three selectmen on the Webster return and
of two of the three on the Lisbon retui, might he
| either forged written by the same hand. To
prove this they took no word of evidence paper
by parol and gave no notice to tho town officers
thus accused of violating their official duty, to the
towns to be disfrahchsed or to the representative
to be deprived of his election. The signatures them
selves unlike and the letters so differently
formed that expert could hesitate to pronounce
them independent signatures. But the district was
necessary TO give them majority in the House and
both towns were struck out. AS so as the in
elligence reached the DISTINGUISHED towns the six
selectmen came in person before the Governor and
Council, three of them, and one prominent Demo-
GRAFT, driving thirty miles in furious storm and de-
manded to be heard and each swore that he
signed his name with his hand and saw the
others do the same. Driven from this position the
Governor and Council still refuse to right the
wrong thus done and in their repor seek shelter
under the claim that either the record le return
was not made up in open town meeting AS to the
return all six of the selectmen testified that it
sealed in open town meeting and in their presence
And as to both record and return the Governor and
Council claim a fact they can never legally know
for the Supreme Court interpreting the constitution
has said that the Governor and Council cannot
legally inquire into any of the proceedings of the
town its officers before, during at the meeting
but bound by the face of the return Opinion of
Justices, 81 Maine, $50, 591D
STONEHAM.
This district is composed of five towns. Every
turn is perfect its face, and the district shows
clear Republican majority for A. f. Andrews Stone
ham, the strongest Republican town in the class,
shows a majority of about forty. The Democratic
candidate, o. N. Bradbury, presented an affidavit,
taken without notice to his opponent no one knows
when where, signed by two fusion selectmen of
that town, who had also signed the official return
stating that the vote not declared in open town
meeting and that they signed the return in blank
the meeting and it was filled in afterwards This
testimony was taken with no cross-examination and
none of the safeguards which the courts of law or
the interests of truth demand; the party affected
not confronted with the witnesses the evidence
stood uncOrrObOrated. directly cOutraicted the