Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1880-09-27
The result Of this discussion Is that the
Legislature must be bound by the returns OF

The result of this discussion Is that the
Legislature must be bound by the returns OF
votes for Governor, and cannot go outside oil
them for any purpose whatever Their duties
are merely ministerial-they are merely 10
compare and foot up the returns as they ap
pear on their face. If on the face OF the re-
turns William II. Smith is voted for, all the
votes that have that name on them must De
counted for him, and if there are votes Tor
William Smith, or W. II. Smith. they cannot
be counted for William II. Smith, but they
must be counted for William Smith and W.
II. Smith respectively; and the Legislature
cannot know that they are thrown or intended
for the same man. and they cannot hear any
evidence outside of the return itself to show
it, or have any right or power to guess at it.
The will Ofvoters is conclusivcly expressed on
the face of the return. This must be so, or the
whole year for which Governor was elected
might be consumed in the controversy. and a
wide door would be opened for fraud and
perjury, and the elections instead of resting
on the solid foundation of contemporaneous
records and sworn returns, would depend on
the verbal testimony OF interested and parti-
san, and perhaps bribed and perjured wit
nesses.
This result has been settled by the Supreme
Court in Ga Me. Reports, $50, 591, 59s, as
the following extracts will show
ssThe Governor and Council, in comparing
and examining the returns of votes and in
declaring who are elected, act as a canvass
ing board They only know what the re-
turns indicate. In their Investigations they
are limited TO the evidence derivable from the
returns transmitted 10 them by the several
clerks of the cities, towns or plantations OF
the State, except when their powers have
been enlargedby statute. If the returns show
that ballots were cast for John Smith and for
J. Smith for the same office, it cannot be as
certained from any evidence before the can
wasting board that the initial letter of the
Christian name, j., was intended for John
rather than for Joseph or James or any other
Christian name beginning with such letter,
which different persons bearing that common
surname may have; so, if John Smith and
James Smith were respectively candidates tor
the same office, no inspection of the returns,
however accurate, would offer any clue to en-
able the Governor and Council to determine
whether the vote for j.. Smith should be
counted for the one or the other of the con-
tending candidates, or for some other Smith
whose Christian name began with j. The
fact of different ballots would indicate that
there were different individuals for whom
such ballots were intended"
''When there are authorizations of the
Christian name in common and ordinary use,
as VIM. for William. it is otherwise, for these
authorizations have recognized and well I'M
derstood meaning.
SO, when the name is misspelt but recOg-
nizable by the sound as that of a candidate,
the mis-speliing cannot lead to any misunder-
standing; the recognition of identity from
the record will justify the counting the name
mis-spelt for the candidate for whom it was
obviously intended"
''The names of William II. Smith and Will
liam Smith are different. The ballots re-
spectvely bearing those names were cast by
different persons and they are returned as the
names of different candidates. Evidence
from without the returns would be necessary
to show that they were intended for the same
person, but such eridenee is not legally ad-
missi6ie. b. c.