The Portland daily press., 1880-01-09
FRIDAY MORNING, JANUARY 8.
IN. Y. Tribune.l
What Did Governor Garcelon
Mean?

Mean!
On the 9th of December the Hon. Lot NJ
Morrill, addressed letter to Governor Garce-
Ion begging him to require the opinion OF the
State Supreme Court ION each law point in
volved in the variation of. the count from the
face of the official returns" His reason for
making this request was explained to be that a
very large proportion of the people OF Maine
believed they had been grossly wronged by
the acts of the eanvassers, and that an authori-
tative declaration by the Court would 'restore
peace, order, quiet and good feeling" Mr.
Morrill, moreover showed how practical
effect could be given to the opinion of the
Judges in case it should be adverse to the ac
ton of thel Governor and Council. He re-
minded Governor Garcelon first that there
were precedents for recalling a summons erro-
neously issued; and second, that in the case Of
the five disfranchised cities no summons had
yet been sent to anybody. He added: Even
if there was question to the strict legal
right to recall certificate of election, it is not
doubted that the decision OF the Court would
at once cause the member not entitled to the
scat to retire. and the rightful member to be
admitted" To this the Governor replied:
Nothing would give me greater pleasure than
an authoritative decision upon points involved
in the present condition Of affairs, and also
upon such as might be likely to arise. Please
to indicate the points that occur to you which
have not already been adjudicated upon, and
doubt not that we may be able to obtain a sat
isfactory solution of doubtful complications;
or, if not satisfactory, at least such as may be
deemed authoritative" Rightly interpreting
tie Governors reply as an "acquiescence in
the propriety of settling all disputed points in
this orderly, just and constitutional manner"
Mr.. Morrill, indicated fourteen questions to be
submitted to the Court. Governor Garcelon
substituted for them tw elve other questions,
framed, as he presumably supposed in the
Democratic interest. and then called the Court
together.
What did the Governor mean? Mr.. Morrill,
proposed an arbitration; the Governor accepted
it. According to all rules Of honor both par
ties, having agreed to an arbitration, are bound
by the decision Governor Garcelon in this
case is under particularly stringent obliga-
ton to abide by the result, because he de-
manded and obtained the exclusive privilege
of determining what points should be laid be-
fore the arbitrator. The Republicans might
have reason for resisting the judgment, on the
ground that the mYtter passed upon was not
that which they offered to submit; but the
Governor has no such excuse; they are his own
questions to which the Court, by unanimous
voice, has made these clear and positive re-
plies; and if DR.. Garcelon is an honest man,
he ought to stand by his implied pledges. He
cannot plead that the opinions of the Judges
apply only to future controversies and that the
past is irrevocable. Tie pertinency of an
Authoritative decision" Of the Court to "the
present condition of affairs" 1--WE are quoting
the Governors own Words was carefully con-
sidered in the preliminary correspondence;
and the arbitration was proposed and accepted
for the sole purpose, unequivocally stated by
both parties, of settling the existing dispute
about the proper complexion of the Legisla-
ture. Governor Garcelon perfectly understood
what he was doing and if we assume that he is
blessed with ordinary common sense, we must
take it for granted that when he asked the
opinion of the Court, he intended to be ruled
by it. He might have refused to go before the
Court; that would have been much simpler
course than accepting arbitration and then
repudiating the decision
Probably he imagined that his twelve ques-
tions were SO artfully devised that the answers
must be favorable to his side He supposed
that the technical strength of his case was
much greater than it turned out to be. Mr..
Morrill's questions, it will be remembered,
were framed with a view of ascertaining
whether the Governor and Council had au-
thority to permit the correction of defective
returns so as to give effect to the known will of
the voters, the corollary being that it was
their moral duty to do this if they had the
power. Governor Garcelon refused to put the
inquiries in this form. He asked instead
whether the canvassers had strict legal
right to throw out defective returns and
to this he supposed the Court must necessarily
answer Yes, whatever discretionary authority
there might be for another and more equitable
course. He overlooked two principles of law,
clearly stated by the Court: ~ That when
public rights are concerned permissive au-
thority shall be construed as mandatory; and
(2) that constitutional requirements as to the
form and manner Of making returns are in
tended to protect the suffrage, and must not be
so interpreted as to destroy it. In harmony
with these principles the Supreme Court pro-
nounced an opinion which utterly overthrow
the Governor. When that headstrong gentle
man read it he was probably more astonished
than ever before in his life; and we have little
doubt that the catastrophe left him without {,
plan. What he had bound himself to do under
these circumstances by his acceptance of the
arbitration is plain enough; but the man who
was bold enough to defy the public opinion of
the United States by counting out legally
elected Legislature was not bold enough to do
his duty when it had been pointed out to him
by advisers of his own choice. Courage some
times is a capricious quality. DR.. Garcelon re-
tires to private life with singular rep
utation, as the Governor who was not afraid to
do wrong, but was afraid to acknowledge that
he had made a mistake.