The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1880-03-14
EX-G0V. GARCELON.
CONTINUATION OF vs. TESTIMONY.
He claims that The supreme Courts
Decision OF the Maine MIDDLE wns
In Opposition ~ Common Sense,
ANA lie Did Not Care for ~.

ana lie Did Not Care for ~.
Augusta, Me, March l9,--Ex-Goyerno
Garceon roappcarod before the Hall com.
mittee to-day. The case Of Cherryaeld was
arst taken up, That town WINS thrown out
and certificate issued TO the Fusion
representatives. Witness did not
know tho politics of either gentleman;
They were thrown out because one of
tho town officers was nm alien witness AT.
tenlion was chilled to tho law Of 1877, rs
amended in 1873, which denies to the Gov
ernor and Council any authority
to decide In regard to the
eligibility Of any officers. Garcclon
said that he considered that tho law could
only apply to this case, and resumed that
there was nothing upon the face of the re-
turns TO how that they were not legal; but
the clerk OF tho court sent m affidavit that
tho officer WIS an allen, Do not know how
tho clerk became aware of defect.
Did not know that parties here hnd sent out
Information and asked for correction of tho
returns. There was great anxiety in the
public mind to have these matters inyesti-
gated and that might have caused il. Did
not believe Pillsbury, with Others, were send
ngout documents TO have the returns counted.
Eben u, Pillsbury WINS very much interested
In politics. II II was done NJ all was without
his consent Fairfield returns were expe.
dited from the town. There came two
returns, they were thrown out be-
cause contradictory, If they had been
enabled to find which was the first return,
that would have been counted, The second
set Of returns Of the commission officers
were shown here attached to which were
slips dated September 9th, stating that they
were amended returns from tho town. Re-
turns for representative, slips of the
same kind, had apparently been torn from
the appearances. He stated that he had no
doubt that slips had been torn off, Never
heard Of it before, md if Fairfield had
been thrown out when the information
contained in the slip was received
II was gross violation Of right. 1t was not
fair TO justify any fraud. He took the fuots
from the Councils reports. This wns the
first intimation no had that things had been
done wrong Said the Governor We have
TO do many things on the testimony of 9th
era, did not have n breath
Of suspicion of the Council ! must confess
to be somewhat guilty of neglect in not hay
ing looked moro into the matter. For the
statements which made in public or private
relied on the inspection and judgment of the
Council. On the l7th of November the
committee called upon him, saying they
feared certain parties had access to the re-
turns. lie was indignant at this. and put
the question dire fly to his counsel, who
stated positively that no outside
party had seen the returns.
The returns were kept in II safe, the KEYS of
which welc in good keeping, one being in
the hands of the chairman of the committee
and the other in the hands of the Secretary
of State. Information might have been i'm
parted concerning the returns. BY CONVERSE
ton he had heard the remark that the
messenger had full access to tho Council
when returns were tabulated. Several sheets
of manuscript were shown the Governor,
who recognized them ms his handwriting.
He had made them because reports were CON
tradicted that only Republican towns were
counted out, and he found the reports from
three hundred Democratic and twenty-seyen
Republican towns were imperfect Atten-
ton was called to the fact that by counting
out the Fusion towns, no Fusion member of
the Legislature was deprived of his
scat, and the Governor was asked
if that was not u little irregular He said he
thought it might be so regarded. His legal
advisers were Councillor Brown, the Attor-
ney-General, and Messrs. Bradbury, Webster
and Gould. In regard to the law of
1877, which allowed the Governor
and Council to take testimony, he
took the counsel of Rice, Bradbury and 9TH
ers, who pronounced the law unconstitu.
tional. For reference of the question to the
court, he held himself responsible, and no
one else. 1t was done to allay
public excitement, and in response to letter
from OK Governor Morrill,. The questions sub
mitted were mostly framed by A. p. Gould
and were examined by Mr.. NJ Larribee, of
Bath, Mr.. Bradbury and Judge Rice.
One Of the questions he wished to
have answered was whether tho case of
cities on the new returns should be ordered.
He did not expect that Any decision of the
court would affect the action already taken
by the Governor and Council. He
had no right to reverse
that no matter what decision might be rem
dered When it came did not change his mind.
He believed he was independent of the court,
and he was not bound to follow its direc-
ton, unless he chose to. He said the
opinion vert against previous opinion
and against common sense. In according to
it we had no law on the constitution and he
deemed it his duty to disregard it. When
he submitted the question he did not care
whether the opinion of the court would agree
with his or not.