The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1880-01-15
THE QUESTIONS.
As Submitted by the Peoples
Legislature to the Courts.
THE ENTIRE GROUND OF THE
CONTROVERSY COVERED.

BANGOR, Jan. 1.-THE following are the
statements of fact and questions submitted to
the Supreme Judicial Court by Republican
members elect of the Legislature. The papers
were handed to Chief Justice Appleton in
Bangor, at about II o'clock to-day:
Statement of Facts
Immediately after the annual ele oton of
Sept s, 1879, copies of the lists of votes cast
in the several towns and plantations for varl-
GUS State and county officers, duly att esed by
the selectmen of towns and assessors OF planta-
tions, and by either the town clerk, deputy
clerk, or clerk pro te'npore, and like copies OF
lists of votes given in the several wards of the
cities duly attested by the mayor, city clerk
and a majority of legal quorum of the alder
men present, were duly returned and delivered
into the office of the Secretary of State thirty
days before the first Wednesday of January,
1880. The Governor and Council opened
these returns Nov. IT, 1879. Application in
proper form was made by parties interested
for inspection of said returns, for the purpose
of discovering and correcting any defects or
errors therein, but in a large majority of cases
such inspection was refused by the Governor
and Council, or granted so late and in such
manner as to be of no avail for the correction
of errors. Senators and Representatives elect
made application to the Governor and Council
within twenty days after the returns were
opened, stating the errors alleged, and gave
such correction or requested the same to be
given, and offered to correct any errors found
therein by the record, or by substituting for
such returns, if detective, duly attested copies
of the record in each case, as provided by the
statute, and by offering such other evidence as
is authorized by chapter 2l2 of the laws of
1877. But the Governor and Council refused
to receive such evidence or to correct any er-
ror3 in said returns, or to receive duly at
tested copy of the record to be substituted for
off nv Of ip-
formalty. Under these circumstances the
Governor and Council proceeded to examine
the returns with the following result:
| The return from the city of Portland was
| duly signed and showed upon its face all the
| facts necessary to consttutute legal election.
! 1t showed the whole number of ballots given
| and that Moses M. Butler, Almon A. Strout,
Ruel S. Maxcey, Samuel A. True and Nathan
| E. Redlon each received over six hundred and
| forty votes plurality over each of the candi-
dates opposed to them. The only defect al
! legged to exist in said return was that it con-
| tanned the words and figures Scattering, one
hundred and forty-three, 143." But this num-
| Der if added or suhtracted or dsregarded
| would still leave each of the candidates above
| named large majority of all the votes cast
| as above stated. The Governor and Council
| rejected said return and refused to summon
| the five Representatives above named, who
were elected and appeared to be elected by a
| plurality of all the votes returned to attend
| and take their seats; and refused to report
| their names and residences to the Secretary of
| State to be included in the certified roll to be
| furnished by him to the clerk of the preced-
ing House of Representatives as required By
| law.
| Subsequently to the making of said return,
Moses NJ. Butler, one of said Representatives
elect, died, and in pursuance of he provisions
| of chapter 4, sections SO, "A and At, of the re-
vised statutes a new election was ordered by
| the municipal officers of the city of Portland,
| and at such election Byron D. Verrill was
| elected by ma iority of over one thousand
votes over all others. and proper return was
made to the Office of the Secretary OF State, but
| no summons were ever issued to said Verrill,
and the Governor and Council refused to re-
port his name to the Secretary of State for the
| purpose above stated.
In the city of Lewiston, Liberty Fl. Hutch
inson, Isaac n. Parker, and Slas W. Cook
were elected by a clear majority OF all the
votes cast. In the city of Saco, George Par
cher in the city of Rockland, Jonathan S.
| Willoughby and Theodore E. Simonton in
The city of Bath. Guy C. Goss, were in like
manner duly elected Representatives. In each
of these four cases the returns were in due
form and signed by mayor, city clerk and
| three aldermen. The Governor and Council,
| in each of the above cases, refused to issue
| summons and to report the names and resi-
dences of said elected Representatives to the
Secretary of State, to be included in the certi-
| fed roll.
| In the Webster, Lisbon and Durham class,
William H. Thomas appeared by the returns
to be elected by q majority of eighty-three
| votes. The returns from said towns were
| without defect and were duly signed by all the
selectmen of each town. Upon rumor that the
| Governor and Council refused to issue sum-
mons to the person elected because it was al
Hp5n the returns rom the towns d hsbon and
| Webster were signed by one person in each
town, all of said selectmen appeared before
the Governor and Council and made oath that
| another ground was taken,-that it appeared
| from extrinsic and er pd1fe evidence that
| either the return was not signed and sealed or
the record was not made up in open town
| meeting The Governor and Council refused
| to issue summons to said William Ell. Thomas
or report his name to be entered on said certi-
| fed roll, but did issue a summons to Leonard
| III. Beals, person who was not elected and did
not appear to be elected by said returns.
1.-THE preamble proceeds at great length set
ting forth the facts in all the counted out cases
which are all familiar to the public
| QUESTIONS.
1. Have the Governor and Council a right
| under the constitution to summon a person to
attend and take a seat in the Senate or House
of Representatives who by the official returns
| under the decision of the court does not appear
to be elected, but defeated, or not voted for; or
would such summons be merely void as exceed
ing the powers of the Governor and Council
| under the constitution?
| 2. Has the holder of any such summons
| right to take part in the organization or sub
| sequent proceedings of either House, to the ex-
| cluson of the members rightfull elected, as
| shown by said returns under the decision of
| the court; or does such right rest in said last
named member, to the exclusion of the mem
| Der summoned from the same district?
| 3. If summons were issued under the facts
| recited in the statement herewith submitted
| to Lewis Voter of the Pennington district,
| II Ne
| of Ashland, James o White of JAY Leonard
| III. Beals of Lisbon, Osgood n Bradbury of
| Sloneham, George w. johnson of New Shar-
| on, Lincoln HI. Leighton of Cherryfeld,
| Aaron III. Woodcock of Vanceboro Harper
! Allen of Fairfield, Joshua e. Jordan of Sears
| port, would such summons give either Of the
above named persons right to take part in the
| organization or subsequent proceedings of the
| House, or would such right rest in Cyrus III.
| Thomas of the Pennington district, Hiram S.
Burnham of the Ashland district, John r.
Eaton of the Jay district William Ell. Thomas
| of the Lisbon district, A. f. Andrews of the
| Stoneham district, David N. Norton of the
New Sharon district, Henry G. Baker of the
| Cherryfeld district, Charles A. Rolfe of the
| Vanceboro district, A. B. Cole of the Fairfield
| district and Robert French of the Searsport
district, to the exclusion of the persons sum
moned from the same districts?
4. If summons were issued under the facts
u.
Daniel W.True of Cumberland county, Edward
A. Gibbs of Cumberland county, Rudolphus
P. Thompson of Franklin county, James r.
Talbot of Washington county, John @. Den
nett of York county, would such summons
give either of the above named persons right
to take part in the organization or subsequent
proceedings of the Senate; or would such right
rest in Andrew Halves of Cumberland county,
David Duran of Cumberland county, Henry
G. Brewer of Cumberland county, George H.
Fernad of Franklin county Alden Bradford
of Washington county, George r. Wakefield
of York county, and j. w. Dearborn of York
county, to the exclusion of the persons sum-
moned from the same districts?
5. Does the same rule apply when the MEM
Der summoned appears by the returns to be
elected only because of some error in the name
or initials of the candidate not summoned,
when such error is correctable by law under
the decision of the court, and the official re-
cords state the name and initials correctly, I'M
der the facts of the Lincoln Senatorial district
and the Representative districts of Exeter,
Newcastle, Gouldsboro, Webster and Robbins
ton. as rected in the statement herewith sub
mitted; or when the member summoned APP
pears by the returns to be elected only by re-
jecting the returns of one town because I'M