Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1880-07-15
Portland Press.
THAT ANSWER.
AsExrLAsArlox THAT NEEDS EXPLAINING

the frbl gunQ the campaign III tue snap
of a Supplement-, Containing an alleged an-
swer of Gov. Garcelon and Council to the
report OF the Hale Committee. The an
swer "a, not new one, but Is the same t'iat
was printed In the Boston Sunday Giooe
several weeks ago. IL Is signed by uo'.
Garcelon and all the members OF the Coun-
ell except John b. Foster and Edward y.
Moody. Since the first appearance Oh .h,s
answer the evidence taken by the HAZE
Committee has been printed precisely III
the language 1t was given, and IL Is now
possible to show the falsity OF this answer
and the recklessness Of one man NJ ieas'
who signs IL, viz: Alonzo Garcelon. We
are inclined to think that before the fu'
sionists get through handling this gun
they will. find II like those In the old coup
let, which bore wide and kicked their own
| ers over.
One paragraph In the answer relates 70
Perkins Plantation, and Is rs follows;
The committee seem Ia have been actnnted
by "A combination of motives Ia the lnNestixh
| tfon OF the returns from Perkins flantniloh
| Here the Fusion candidate tor senator receiver
| fourteen votes and the Republican cah,iii,'r
| thirteen. The committee claim uli' ui''.' ~
| rules established by the Governor and COM
| ell this return could not be countctl p'cai-c
the wbon, number 81 ballots Was nov -tH'''''
and TO save this feeble majority oi "n" l"t '"'
| Fusinnis;s "A forgery has been cuiiiihlu'tA
Every person committing crime l. .uppo-ch
| Ia have some motive Tor doing ~. what no
| tive could have possibly induced the c''u'hl,-
sion of forgery In thi. instance We eahhot per
! ceivc The Republicans claimed ogly 4 major
| itv of seven for their candidate, W.. ftFnhhi'
! which " a. entirely overcome 10y the rejection
| OF the towns at New sharon AMI farmingtnh'
| either OF these towns moru than changing w"
| majority 81 seven claimed
This explanation does not touch At al
the vital question IN regard 10 ferkin'
| Plantation. I; j. the counting Of the rep
rc~cutati,e return from that town thai
needs explanation. IL viii he remembered
| that Perkins Is claSscd with Pennington.
The district was Republican by a heavy
majority. but hy throwing out Pennington
| ON The ground that the return Or The record
was not made up in open town meeting,
aud counting Perkins In spite Of the rules
! laid down by the Council, Il FuSiOnist was
declared elected ON this point we viii
| cite Garcelon's testimony before the Hale
committee:
o.-lfin and call your attention 10 II, tina
| the Council adopted rule that thc whole mum
Der OF ballots must be- correctly stated. Was
that rule adopted and followed ouif
! A.-Corrcctly stated.
! Q.-That the whole number OF Daliots on the
N'-"Mnst appear" yes. that WAS the rule.
| Q--Was that rule followedf
| Ayes, sir
| o.-Look at the Representative tabulation
| from franklin County, Pennington district
aud see what was the result OF throwing OUT
A'~Thc result was that Perkins Plantation
elected
| Voter. and by rejecting Pennington II threw
| bs ,.lp Perkins
| A.-les.
| O.-what was the whole number Of votes
| thrown there,
have been rejected there i 40 whole number
| uf votes given.
| OF was not rcJectcd'
| o.-What was the vote ~ thrown
f.-Thirte-n for Thomas. fourteen for Voter
| glowing one majority for Voter
Q.-And on that plantation the certificate
| wasissucd TO voter
Ayes. 80 II appear
$50 that the SIS votes OF Pennington were
| thrown outy
A-Thcy should both o! them have been
| ~ III both of them hal been thrown out no.
body would have received the ccrtihcaief
A.-No. That Is a matter never saw before
IL cannot be claimed by the most stupid
defender of the count that the Hale Com
mittec altered this return The defect
was an omission, and II anything had been
scratched out n could have been easily dts
covered. When Gareelon met with his
Council to make up his answer he had iull
knowledge of the crooScdness In the Per
kins case. And yet he puts his name 10 4
paper which declares that the count was
constitutional, that the rules laid down
were impartially enforced and that The
count was honest and fair, and yet this an
swcr contains not one word Of explanation
of this Perkins case. which hut short time
before he had declared crooked and IN Nio-
lation of the rules of the Council, and from
the odium OF which he sought To relieve
himself by saying that he knew nothing
about II. Gov. Garcelon complained 10 the
Hale committee that the papers had ire
auenly said that he was natural born fool
| He ought to congratulate himself that they
said nothing worse.
Let u, look at another case, that Of Som
eryillc. Here the return was counted and
by means OF II Fusion Senator was count
ed in in Lincoln County. Again we cite
| from Garcelon'S testimony:
| o-IcelI your attention now tn the principle
| laid down by you, In which believe there was
no exception, Us you understand. that the
| name OF ilIr uuulClllaI oIIsScIH mus
| be all In their original handwriting.
| A.-lcs.
| of not they were thrown out?
k-That was the design
| O-Iook al the Senatorial return from som
| ervilIc and see II upon that II i clearly owl.
dent that the last three names were signed by
| the same man!
| Q.-so that ought TO have been thrown out,
| too:
A.-Yes, sir.
We have searched the answer In vain for
any explanation of this performance. There
was an explanation given by Mr.. Fogg TO
the effect that the similarity Of signatures
was not noticed, but a. Mr.. Fogg has since
declared that he was away Ia New York or
Boston, or somewhere else, when the tab
ulations were made aud that the Democrats
| In the Council were responsible for the
crookedncss If there was any, his explana-
ton is not worth much. His fellow tabu
lators did not consider IL OF any conse-
quence evidently, for they neglected To In
corporate IL In their answer. Yet with
this case. which Garcelon admitted was
crooked. unexplained. Garcelou j. ready
| to swear that the count was legal, eonsti-
tutional, honest and impartial.
Again. Here l. a paragraph from the
answer in the case OF the town OF Buck
| 1eld:
The Hale committee claim that In the returns
| for county officers from the towns Of Bucknsld
| and Erownfeld the names Of the towns have
| been written In by some one since they we're
| received at Augusta, sd that now they show
i from what towns they came. and that before
| this change was made there was nothing 10
| show where the papers came rom. What poe
| sib.e motive any member OF the Council could
have had TO make these corrections. n l. DIM
| cult To understand. In the fr,t place each one
| of the returns came enclosoi IN ofiictal euvel-
ones which contained on their face ccrtih-
cate signed by the municipal officers, tell.
| ing what the return was and what town II
| a ulfug NJ Ton.