Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1880-11-12

Allen c. Grover, Democrat, of the town
of Wells. was returned as elected 10 the
Legislature 10y majority Of two votes.
The other candidate, Mr.. Nathan Spanlding,
contested the election, and proved before
the Committee on Elections that five votes
were cas. ILLEGALLY for Grover, by non
residents and persons who had not been
within the State for a year preceding the
election. The Committee have decided that
Spaulding Lad 4 majority Of the legal votes.
But another question was raised-whether
Spaulding was eligible to the Legislature, lie
having been IN Missouri for four years, from
1868 TO - Mr.. Spaulding's counsel, Messrs.
c. H. Pitkin and ii. 4. lluse, claimed that
as he did not leave the State with the inten-
ton of no; returning TO reside in it, and did
not gain right to participate in the govern
ment of Missouri, lie did not lose his citizen
ship here by his temporary absence: that
even if he was not 4 legal voter at the time
Of the election, if he became qualified before
he took his seat, that was sufficient (and III
fac, he has become qualified since freeman's
meeting: that the votes cast for him, even
if he was ineligible, inasmuch as they were
a majority of the votes cast, were Il bar to
Growers election. The committee have
substantially adopted these views, and will
report in favor of Mr.. Spaulding's right 10
the seat.
In the town of Clarendon, after ballolins
eighteen times intellectually, a motion was
made to adjourn and was carried by ma
iority against the protest OF the minority,
who claimed that the frccmans meeting could
not be adjourned except by unanimous con
sent. After the passage of the motion 10
adjourn. greater part of the voters left the
hall, among them the constable carrying the
ballot-box. Others stayed behind and con
tinucd the balloling. Moses W. Kelley, one
of the seecimcn, receiving the votes in his
hat. Seven votes were cast, all for Noel
Potter, the returned member, who had led
the other two candidates in every ballot eX
ccpt the fist two or three, when lac was moi
a candidate and in one ballot only lacked
three votes of Il majority. The remonstrants
claim that they had a right To adjourn the
meeting by vote Of the majority, and that
the proceedings after the attempted adjourn
ment were 50 Informal that they did not
amount 10 Il legal meeting. On the other
hand the counsel for Mr. Potter, Mcssrs. c.
II. Pitkin and Hiram a. IIusc, claimed that
Il freeman meeting cannot be adjourncd eX-
ccpt Icy unanimous consent and tina, the
subsequent proceedings were II continuation
Of the frccmcn's nccting and were as formal
as was possible underline circumstances.
While there was no real dispute as TO vital
facts in the case, the rcmonsrans claimed
that the proceedings after the attempted ad-
iournmcnt were in fun; but the participants
testified that they were in earnest. 1t is
said that the committee will report in favor
Of Mr. Pottcrs retention Of his scat. Con
siderable stress was laid by the counsel for
the rcmonstrants, McsSrs u. Il. Kendall and
Robert Roberts, upon the precedent in the
Richmond case Of ISL, when Mr.. A. B.
MAYNARD was returned. Previous TO his
being declared elected Il majority voted TO
adjourn. Some Of the voters got together
after the adjournment and cast five votes for
Mr Maynard. The house committee report
cd Il resolution that hc was entitled to his
scat, which WAS rejected by the House by Il
vote Of ninety nine TO ninety seven. a mo-