Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1880-01-02

| the returns rom tncn plhniauODs bnHll
not be counted. We found the returns
of seven plantations irregular in this
particular and we have specified them
on our .abnlation. 1t will there appear
that the rejection Of those returns affect
the return of two representatives.
HE statute requirement OF settiug
forth the returns of the whole number
! of VOTES, In many cases, was not COM
piled with. We find IL has been the
practice OF the governor and council for
many years toreject such returns,a and we
have not deemed it safe to deviate
from this long established interpreta-
ton Of the law. so fully recognized by
our predecessor and in making our
tahulations we have omitted such re-
! turns. 1t will be perceived that these
rel sctions 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 i.
Wallace, IT,, and in others by the name
Of John 4. Wallace, but We have tabu-
lated the votes AZ 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 10
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 n statement signed
by the selectmen, that II certain num-
Der of ballots were protested, IN being
Illegal under section 90 chapter 4, OF
the revised statutes. One Of the ballots
objected to was attached to the returns.
Tho selectmen, IN their certificate,
allege that many OF such ballots were
thrown ont and in the certificate they
inform the governor and council that
they make the return subject to the
legality or illegality 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 tho candidates names were
printed and on the next page the bal
ance OF the names Of the candidates
appear. We nre fully satisfied that
that kind of II ballot il clearly in vio-
lation Of the letter and spirit Of the
foregoing named statute, and they were
accordingly rejected in making our
tabulatons. a protest WAS filed against
counting the returns from the town of
Cherryheld on the ground that the Off
GERS, who attested the return, were not
legal officers. The ailidaviis presented
with the protest establishes the fact that
not ono legal solectman presided Mt the
making out OF the returns and review
ing the votes. Ono Of the selectmen
was foreigner and could not legally
hold the Office Of seleetman
IT, superior court have held that
boar IF town officers, consisting Of less
than three is not " legal board. Acting
upon this opinion we have rejected the
returns from the town of Cherryiield.
This affects the election Of one of the
representatives. Tho several protests
and ailidavits to support them were re-
ferred to us, asking the rejection Of re.
turns Oh account of bribery and intimi-
dating of voters and on account of legal
defects in callinL the town meeting; al
40 on account OF nm improper check
list.
Tho copy of tho record, presented to
us from the town OF Skowhepon, shows
that for the election in that town, only
one copy OF tho warrant was posted
and the record does not show that one
wns 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 tho check list in three OF the wards
in violation of the law while the voting
was going on on election day. Aiida-
Wits were filed fully establishing that
fact. Other aihdayts plainly show the
same conditions of things i'll other cities.
We consider these facts ~ not legally
cognizable BY the governor and the
council M Il canvassing board, and we
have disregarded them. In our iabula-
ton we recommend n reference OF all
such papers to the legislature.
The returns from Portland are de-
fective because they do not comply
with the constitutional requirement
which provides that the names Of all
the persons receiving votes shall be
stated in the returns. A large number
of votes were returned from said city as
scattering" and there was no possible
means afforded by the returns to de-
termine for whom such votes were
thrown.
The returns nom the cities OF Saco,
Lewiston, Bath and Rockland are fatal
~ defective, because they are not SIGN
ed by majority of the aldermen. I'm.
der the statutes, and by n decision OF
the court, such returns cannot be
counted, and we have been obliged TO
reject them. II will dovolve upon the
house of representatives to determine
in the frat instance and finally who
have been elected To the house from
these cities, ~ we have no legal evl.
dence before us To determine that ques.
ton.
GOV. GARCElONs LETTER,
TO he Pubic: kilograms and sugges.
tions having reached the undersigned
d lk.N nn,,t ma f.A. Iac.nl,N,, ,,,J Ms