Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1880-01-09
A Maine Judge to Gov. Garcelon.
SOME PERTINENT QUESTIONS.
from the Bangor CNeA Whig.

SOME PERTINENT QUESTIONS.
from the Bangor (Me) Whig.l
( SIR: You have seen fit to address letter
especially To the Democracy of the United
States, for the purpose as you state, OF CIV
ing an explicit explanation of exactly what
You and your Council did" in the matter of
counting the votes for Senators and Rep
rcsentativos, "and why you did it." What
you did is matter of history: but careful
examination of your letter, which is not a
short one, fails to ascertain why you did
it Your especial constituents the people
of Maine, to whom your letter does not seem
to be addressed, would like TO know, and
claim that they have the right to know,
''why you did, certain conspicuous acts in
your late count They would like to know,
and they claim that they have the right to
know from you, upon what provision of the
Constitution or laws, or upon what decisions
4 Of the Supreme Court, You decided the
following four or five cases of Representa-
tivcS
And first the Skowhegan case In this
case the Republican ticket contained the
names of the officers voted for in two col
umns instead of one. There was no dis
tinguishing mark the ballot And yet
you have counted out" these Republican
votes. and said to the Republicans of Skow-
hegan that their voice shall not be heard in
the selection of the Representatives from
that district why did you do IT." Sec
tion 80 Of chapter 4, Revised Statutes, a
law which has stood for more than genera
ton. while il provides that no distinguishing
mark shall be on ballot, also provides that
no vote shall he rejected on that account
after it is received in the ballot-box. This
statute has been upheld to the fullest extent
hy unanimous opinion of the court in Maine
Reports. volume "a, page G02. With this
law before you, upon what constitutional
provisions or for what reason did YOU dis
franchise the Skowhegan Republicans ?
Second, the Webster case As We under
stand from what you have permitted us to
know, the return from that town was in due
form. Why was that town thrown out ?
Report says there was suspicion that the
signatures Of the officers thereto were in one
handwriting. Did any one of the Selectmen
make complaint to you that his name had
been forged upon that return, and did you
thcreupon make Il full, fair and exhaustive
examination into that matter, You now
know that that return was properly signed by
all three of the Sclectmen. Why did you
throw out that town and thereby reverse the
result in that district?
Third, the Chcrryficld case You reversed
u'fl~lbii W tIit II
is understood you alleged that one of the two
officers If Chcrryfed was al alien. How
did You know il? Did the return show it,
and, if not, by what kind of inquest did you
ascertain the fact? And supposing that you
had properly ascertained such fact; if an
alien he was still an officer de facto, and it
has been fully decided by our courts. by the
the courts of the other States, and by the
Federal courts, that the acts of an officer
de facto are valid when they concern the
public or the rights of third persons, and
cannot bc Indirectly called in question. 1t
is only in suit against him that his right
can he questioned" Hooper VS. Goodwin,
As Me-. p. 80. and Dane vs. Derby, 54 Me,
p. %. Why did YOU disfranchse the Re
publicans of Chcrryiield:
Fourth. the Pennington case 1t is under
stood that the returns from that town show
some four more ballots than votes for Rep
resen'aiivcs. Suppose the Selectmen made
the slight mistake of counting among the bal
lots for Representative Il ballot with
the name of the Representative candidate
stricken out, by what requirement of the
Constitution are You directed or permitted
to disfranchise almost thousand voters in
the town of Pennington? Did it not clear
" appear from the returns who had the ma
jority of votes in that town, and just what
that majority WAS !: You throw out the
vote of Pennington, and the people of
Maine want to know why you did it,
Ii is said that the results in other districts
had been changed on various technicalitles,
but it is evident that but for the four cases
above particularly referred TO, the Democ-
rscy would not have been counted in To u
D@s Does Ills IS ract ct furnish the real reason and
grounds for the decisions in the four above,
mentioned cases, or is the real reason i'll
volved in the following utterances of one of
the distinguished members of your Council,
to wit: The time has come in the history
of our country when politics are reduced to
an absolute science. The sharpest men en-
ter the field, and those who can cheat most
succeed best If not, the people of Maine
have right to know and demand to know,
on what grounds of law these decisions
were made.
Again. why did YOU throw out the vote
of the City Of Portland? Was there not II
return made from that city duly signed:
Suppose that that return set forth two or
even more votes as scattering" was il for
that reason anv more difficult 10 determine
from the return ''who appeared 10 be elect
ed: Do You intend 10 say that if the vote
of great city is practically unanimous,
but if the Wardcrand Clerk OF u single ward
therein. either by accident or design, return
two votes TO the City Clerk US scattering,
that for that reason all the voters in such
city should be dsfranchised? How could
You say. with such Il return before You, that
nobody appeared 10 he elected:
There are other points connected with
your count which require 10 be explained,
hut your answer 10 the foregoing questions IS
first awaited.
:. F. llUMruREy.
l. ....AI. n..I. nl 1S-n