Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1880-07-16

wear. Inc case OF SkDWntXdh ~aS III
volved in one of the questions which was
submitted BY Gov. Garcelon to the SUI
preme Court. The following is the ques-
ton and answer:
Question 9. If a ballot has distinguish
ing mark. in the Judgment of the Governor
and Council. such as would make it illegal
under the statutes have they authority TO
disregard il in their ascerfainment OF what
persons appear to be elected where 1t ap-
pears by the official return of the officers OF
tho town that such vote was received DIV the
selectmen subject to the objection, ans: Its lie,
gality referred 10 the Governor and Council
for decision.
Answer The presiding officers are to de-
termine whether the ballot offered has dis
tinguishing mark or figure, so that if rejected,
the voter NAV procure ballot If he chooses.
to which no exception can be taken. But II
the ballots have Distinguishing marks or ns-
ures. il is no part of the duty Of the officers OF
the town to make any report IN reference
thereto They should reject the ballot. If Of
fered- when it is within the prohibition OF the
statute The statute prohibits the rejection
of the ballot, latter it is received into the
ballot box" 1t is then to be counted The
Governor and Council have nothing to do
with the question. Their duty Is to count
the votes. regardless of the fact improperly
set forth in the return. They are nowhere
constituted a tribunal with judicial authority
to determine what shall constitute distln-
gushing mark or figure, nor can they legally
refuse s'to open and count the votes return
ed" 81 Maine, COZ. When the ballot has
been once received in the ballot box, neither
the selectmen nor the Governor and Council
can refuse to count IT.
This answer of the Court disposed OF
the case of Skowhegan and MIR. Snow
(honor to him) refused to accept his GER
tificate to seat Are the democrats and
greenbackers of Skowhegan now going to
wear the collar of the fusion committee
and vote that this outrage upon free and
fair ballot was righte We don't believe
score of them will do it.
Another ease in Somerset county. was
that of Fairfield. which is worse if possible
than the Skowhegan fraud. 1t appeared in
the testimony brought before the Hale in
vestigating committe that the republican
selectmen, on the day of election, by a
mistake overlooked twenty ballots which
had been cast for.the fusion ticket. They at
once notified the department at Augusta
of the mistake, and asked for new blanks
on which they might make ont amended
returns. These were furnished by Simon
S. Brown Of Fairfield. member of Gar
celon's Council, who on account of his
residence in the town, took a special in
terest in the case. On the margin of the
returns they pasted slip of paper on
which was marked Amended return of
the town of Fairfield. Sept. %. 1872
and to place the matter beyond the posi-
biitv of a mistake. they enclosed the fol-
lowing letter explaining the whole trans
action:
FAIRFIELD. Sept %, 1879.
To the Secretary Of State 1Hgusta, Name:
SIR: IIerewith please find amended re-
port of the town of Fairfield, made in consc-
quence of an error which occurred in the
counting of the votes on the evening of the
election. which we have made after a careful
count of the votes which were carefully pre-
served.
F. +, NJ N TorMAs, seleotmen
ii. c. BURLEIGH, of
Cd GREEN. Fairfield.
, Attest, F. +. McFadden, Town Clerk of
Fairfield.
Did the Governor and Council throw
aside the imperfect return, and count the
amended and correct return? No. They
tore off the slip of paper marked amend
ed Return" (neglecting. however, to re-
move it entirely. so that their work was
afterwards detected and putting the two
returns together. decided that both should
be thrown out. as one contradicted the
other?
Why did they do this? What was their
object? Simply this-the republican ma
iority of seventy-five votes was lost to the
republican candidate for representative,
and his fusion competitor was counted in
and received the certificate. While Gov.
Garcelon was on the stand this case was
brought to his attention; he acknowledged
that it was clearly fraud, denied all
knowledge of it, and asserted that he
would not have permitted it had he been
aware of It's existence.
After full examination on the subject.
the Fairfield case was again brought to
Garcelon's attention. and the following
questioning took place:
Q.-You do not think our friend Brown.
at Fairfield. had anything to do with fixing
up the Fairfield return?
Al Witness laughs. am rather in
clined to think some of you fellows pasted
these pieces of paper on.
Q.-Seriously?
A The Governor assumed very serious
look, and answered calmly / hare got
nothing TO say
Q.-The Seleetmen swore they pasted them
on themselves. You had not any doubt
about that case when we referred to it. but
what there had been foul play?
Ar THESE WERE THE RETURNS THAT
wERF IN HERE THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT IN
NY JUDGMENT.
Q All these performances. whatever they
were. by any "yudas az the camp you
knew nothing about?
A.-No; never dreamed of such a
thing