The Northern Pacific farmer. [volume] (Wadena, Minn.) 1878-1885, 1880-01-08
initial names with the full names. u

|
an examination of the law. we find the
has held that "the governor and coun.
Gil must count them as distinct and
separate persons" By the adoption of
this rule, laid down by the court, the
election of five representatives seem to
be affected. viz: F. w. Hill, of Exeter,
Alex. Woodcock, of Danforth, J. H.
Hart, of Newcastle, John Brown, of
Hogden, and John w. Brighton, of
Bland.
| The revised statutes reQvire that in
cases of plantations, in addition to the
forms required by towns, list of the
voters OF the plantations must be sent
in to the secretary Of state, otherwise
the returns from such plantations shall
not be counted. We found the returns
Of seven plantations irregular in this
particular and we have specified them
on our +abulation. 1t will there appear
that the rejection of those returns affect
the return of two representatives.
The statute requirement of settiug
forth the returns of the whole number
OF votes, In many cases, was not com.
piled with. We find it has been the
practice OF the governor and council for
many years to reject such returns, and we
have not deemed it safe to deviate
from this long established interpreter
ton of the law, so fully recognized by
our predecessor and in making our
tabulations we have omitted such re.
turns. 1t will be perceived that these
rel 7ctions affect the election of several
representatives.
In the county of Washington, one
candidate for the senate seems to have
been voted for in some of the towns of
his county, by the name of John T.
Wallace, jr., and in others by the name
of John L. Wallace, but we have tabu-
lated the votes as thrown for two differ
ent men, as we have no legal knowl-
edge, that the same person is meant.
Two sets of returns were sent in to
the secretary of state from the town of
Fairfield, each of which contradict the
other, and it was impossible from the
contradictory character Of the returns
to determine the result of the election
in that town. We have, therefore, re-
jected the returns from that town on
our tabulations. The rejection affects
the election of one representative.
Accompanying and attached to the
representative return for the town of
Skohegan, there was statement signed
by the selectmen, that a certain num-
Der of ballots were protested, as being
illegal under section 90, chapter 4, of
the revised statutes. One of the ballots
objected to was attached to the returns.
The selectmen, in their certificate,
allege that many of such ballots were
thrown out and in the certificate they
inform the governor and council that
they make the return subject to the
legality or illegally of that kind of bal
lats. The ballot was in the form of an
ordinary sheet of paper, folded to
make two leaves. On one of the pages
half Of the candidates names were
printed and on the next page the bal
ance of the names of the candidates
appear. We are fully satisfied that
that kind of d ballot is clearly in vio-
lation of the letter and spirit of the
foregoing named statute, and they were
accordingly rejected in making our
tabu]ations. A protest was filed against
counting the returns from the town of
Cherryfield on the ground that the Off
GERS, who attested the return, were not
legal officers. The affdavits presented
with the protest establishes the fact that
not one legal selectman presided at the
making out of the returns and review
ing the votes. One of the selectmen
was a foreigner and could not legally
hold the Office of selectman.
The superior court have held that a
board of town officers, consisting of less
than three is not legal board. Acting
upon this opinion we have rejected the
returns from the town of Cherryfeld.
This affects the election of one of the
representatives. The several protests
and affidavits to support them were re-
ferred to us, asking the rejection of re
turns on account of bribery and intimi-
dating of voters and on account of legal
defects in calline the town meeting; al
50 on account of an improper check
list.
The copy of the record, presented to
us from the town of Skowhepon, shows
that for the election in that town, only
one copy OF the warrant was posted
and the record does not show that one
was posted in the town.
Objection to the counting of the vote
of the city of Aburndale was made,
because the voters names were added
to the check list in three of the wards
in violation of the law while the voting
was going on on election day. Affida-
wits were fled fully establishing that
fact. Other afbdavits plainly show the
same conditions Of things in other cities.
We consider these facts as not legally
cognizable by the governor and the
council as a canvassing board, and we
have disregarded them. In our tabula-
ton we recommend a reference of all