Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1880-04-01

| b. Emery Pratt is also found in Frank
lin county, taking afhdavts either to throw
out republican towns or to correct defects in
| democratic towns, previous to November
| 18th.
Still earlier. on the 18th day of October,
Alfred s. kimball. the fusion candidate for
county attorney in Oxford county, is found
| taking exparte affidavits, as in the case of
| the town of Stoneham, upon which the
| Governor and Council threw out the vote of
the town and thereby counted in another fu.
sion representative.
The conclusion is irresistible that there
was deliberate plan to give time and to
! furnish information from the returns to
| parties in sympathy with the Governor and
Council politically. upon which defects in
cases njuriousy affecting the fusion candi-
dates could be cured, and cases could be got
| up under which republican candidates could
| be counted out.
In no case was defect in a return which
| operated against republican candidate al
| lowed to be corrected, and in no case which
We have found was there any denial of the
| right claimed by the fusionists to get up a
case on exparte affdayits against republican
candidates. upon facts touching the returns
but in no wise appearing upon their face.
| The conspiracy must have had its seat at
Augusta. and the council both kept the re-
turns from the inspection of republican
candidates and DELAYED its action in order
| that the parties who were acting outside as
the instruments of the conspiracy could have
| full swing in which to do their work
APPLICATION or THE RULES AND PRINCI-
| rLEs LAID DOWN ny THE GOVERNOR AND
/ COUNCIL.
| One of the strongest proof, of the eAis-
| tence ola determination on the part Of the
| governor and council to secure the control
of the legislature is found i'll the manner in
which they applied the law as they interpret
ed it to the cases arising before them.
! For instascc-one Of the rules laid down
as found in the report made and published
| BY the committee on election Returns OF the
| grounds on which their action was based
/ vas that under a decision Of the court the
1 returns must be signed by each Of the town
officers Individually.
! Under this rule. because the signatures
/ on the return from New Sharon bore some
/ resemblance to each other the return was
! rejected. Although the town officers for
warded atfidavits establishing the fact that
! each officer had written his own signature
under this republican representative was
/ thrown out
( A. All Offset 10 this Your comilittee find
/ that IN the town of Somcrylllc. Lincoln
/ County, where the signatures of all the
sclcctmen and the town clerk are plainly and
undeniably in the handwriting of thc town
I clerk. and when the town clerk testifes that
/ he wrote them all,-yet, as the vote in the
/ town resulted in fusion majority of eleven.
| and senator depended on the vote, the re-
turn was received and counted and upon il a
| certificate issued to Isaac I. llobson. the
/ fusioni>t candidate, it being necessary. as
/ has already been shown. To also throw out
the vote for the republican senator, in sand
/ town.
/ Another rule laid down va, that where
initial, we're used IN the ballot, instead oi
I the full Christian name. the votes must be
cu.ntcd thrown for two persons Under
I this rule, IN the town OF Fast Livermore. the
votes thrown for the republican candidate
/ fcr county commissioner were actually cast
/ for Hiram ". Briggs. and so recorded; 10;
| by an error in the return. they were set
/ down cast for Hiram Briggs.
The Governor and Council refused Ia
| count them for Hiram W Briggs. but did
/ t4hulate and count them for Hiram Briggs.
/ BY reason Of which he lost the vote OF the
| town and the certificate was given to the fu-
SION candidate. This case was the harder to
bear becasSe aihdayits were filed showing
that the votes we're actually cast for Hiram |
| W. Briggs. and that il was so recorded in
! the Clerks record.
! On the other hand in the town OF Lincoln, |
where the return showed that votes for 1
| County Attorney were thrown for B. II. /
Mace, yet upon aifdayits that the voters in
! tended TO vote for benjamin II. Mace, the /
| Governor and Council tabulated and counted /
the vote for benjamin H. Mace, he being
the fusion candidate, and receiving the Ger !
t!ficate of election.
Other instances are found touching the !
question of the names used in the votes for /
different candidates when the decision OF the /
Governor and Council was one way when |
il affected fusion candidate and the other /
way when II affected arepubican candidate. /
In Oxford county one of the republican
candidates for Senator was Francis W. Red /.
Ion, and in the town of Hanover, the re-
publican vote as shown by the return was
for Francis ". Redlond. The Governor and /
Council refused TO count the vote for Mr.. /
Redlon and he lost the vote of the town |
But in Lincoln Plantation in the same coun- |
" while the fusion candidate was Charles /
Rankins, the vote of the plantation was
thrown for Charles Rankin, and the Cover /
nor and Council tabulated and counted it for
| Charles Rankins.
In Washington county where one Of the |
fusion candidates was James X. Talbot, the |
| Governor and Council tabulated and counted |
for him the votes of the town of Talmadge !
which were returned as thrown for John b. |
/ Talbot and also the votes OF kossuth which |
/ by the return were thrown for James X. |
/ Talbart.
| In Cumberland county one of the fusion
candidates for Senator was Isaac f. Quinn f!
\ by. but the New Gloucester and RAYMOND !
vote Was thro"A Tor Isaac +. Quinby. The
Governor and Council tabulated and counted
I the vote for Isaac r. Quinby while in Aroos-
took county, where in the Ashland district
John Burnham was the republican candi-
| date for the legislature and the vote of
! Ashland was returned for John Burnam. the
Governor and Council refused to tabulate
it for John Burnham.
The towns of Stow and Denmark afford
other instances Of this inconsistency in ap-
plying the Governor and Councils rule as it
appears in the printed testimony.
| A strong instance Of the perversity of the
Governor and Council, and their determine
ton to count in majority of fusion Sena-
tors and Representatives, at the expense of
republican candidates, is found in the action
Of the Governor and Council in the cases of
the cities of Portland, Lewiston, Bath. Rock
land and Saco. In these cases no argument
or citation of law could induce the Governor
and Council TO certificate the republican
Representatives who had been elected by
large majorities, and even after the opinion
Of the Justices had been received and an op-
portunity was offered to set the matter right,
the rejection was persisted in. In this case
Governor Garcelon testfes that he advised
his Council after the opinion was received
that the republicans in Portland should re-
ceive their certificates, but he was oyerruled.
In the district composed of the towns of
Exeter and Garland, two brothers viz: Geo.
S. and Francis W. Hill, were rival candi-
dates. The town of Exeter returned its
vote for F. W. Hill 22O, G. S. Hill, l46.
while the Garland return showed that Fran
els W. Hill received l3l votes and George
S. Hill 24l, while, in fact the Exeter votes
we're cast for Francis w. and Geo. S., and