The Portland daily press., 1880-10-01
THEN AND NOW.
The Fusionists' Dilemma.

Mr.. EDIToR:-The Fusionists at the pre-
sent time are becoming alarmed by the appre-
hension that Mr.. Plaisted after all may not be
the next Governor of Maine, and their posi-
tion is extremely ludicrous when compared
with their record of one short year ago.
Then, they all agreed that where the returns
for senators and representatives exhibited any
discrepancies in the names of the candidates,
they must be tabulated as for different persons,
and this even where the discrepancy consisted
only in giving correct initials instead of full
names, as in the case of George S. Hill and
6. S. Hill.
Now, they insist that in canvassing the
votes for governor, returns for Harris NJ.
Plaisted Hiram NJ. Plaisted, Morris H. Plais.
ted, ETC., should be counted for one person.
Then, they denounced the opinions of the
Court which were confined strictly to the case
OF senators and representatives and the laws
appliable thereto as unsound in law and parti-
san in the extreme.
Now, they call upon the same Court to ap.
ply the same principles to the case of Cover
nor.
OF all parties, pronounce unconstitutional and
demand to have their candidate declared
elected under it,
Their apprehensons in regard to Mr.. Plais-
ted are founded upon the theory that under
existing laws and the judicial decisions, the
returns to which l have referred must be
tabulated as for different persons. Governor
Garcelon and his council quoted as their au-
thorlty in such cases the opinion from GA Me,
page 596, rendered in December 1875, i'm
which it was held that even in the case of
county officers votes returned for William H.
smith and w. ID. Smith must be counted as
for different persons, and that it was only
where the identity of the candidate appeared
In the return itself that it could be counted for
one person; as for instance where the name
was misspelled, but was iden1 soaadns or where
we'll understood abbreviation was used such
as VIM. for Will lam.
In that opinion the Court referring to the
consequences of the rule laid down said:
'sInthe case of county officers the will of the
voters may sometimes be defeated by their negli-
gence in not designating with sufficient precision
the names of their candidates 4
Whether further enlargement of the powers of
the gov ernor and council may not be expedent is
matter for the consideration of the legislature
In accordance with such suggestion the legis-
lature which Immediately thereafter assembled
in 1876 amended the law so that in such cases
the governor and council could count the votes
returned for the person for whom they were
in fact intended, and the next year in 1877 the
legislature extended the same provisions to
the case of senators and representatives.
Now, the fusionists are possessed with the
fear that what they have quoted as sound law
in the case of senators and representatives
and of county officers in 1876 in the absence
OF any constitutional or statuatory provisions
OF law applicable to the case of governor, may
be declared equally sound law as to governor
in 1880: because no law. can be found which
authorizes such votes for governor to be
counted for one person; and even if there were
such law. of course (?) all fusionists would
now agree that it would be u-n-c-o-n-s-t-i t-u-
t-i-o-n-a-l.
1t by no means follows however that the leg
islature will apply the rule which these men
SO recently advocated and approved, and
which they now so urgently deprecate. If
such returns exist and are all counted for Har-
ris M. Plaisted, OR if it appears upon examina-
tion OF the official returns that no discrepan-
cies in name exist, and in either event Mr..
Plaisted thus has plurality of the votes re-
turned then the claim of the fusionists that he
is thereby entitled to be declared duly elected
governor is even more inconsistent than their
position as to the discrepancies in the name.
From the twelfth day of January last down
TO the present time all fusion papers, lawyers,
orators and voters have characterized the
Davis legislature as illegal. In all the cleo
tion cases which have been brought under the
law passed by that legislature, the main argu-
defendants has been the illegality of the the
legislature and hence the ilegality of the law
creating the remedy invoked.
Now, presto change! The Davis legislature
is declared by these same men to have been a
legal body and the law passed by it making the
plurality amendment applicable to the election
of this year, if adopted, is valid law!
vi course; such law is clearly CD constitu-
tional, too-provided Mr.. Plasted has plu-
rility.
so consistency thou art jewelY'
A. w. c.