Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1880-02-24

enlarged on Sf0Ue. An cios"'8 '.s
opinion in this case the Judges say that
1.-The powers a the Governor and Coun-
Gil have been increased to limited ex-
tent by r. s. c. rs, Sec. 81 and then
said, Whether q further enlargement OF
their powers may not be expedient Is a
matter for the consideration Of the Legis-
lature." Acting on this suggestion OF
the Court, as well as the necessities OF the
case, as shown by past experience. the
Legislature of 1876, amended sec. ., OF
chap. rs, X. s., 50 that it reads as fol-
lows:
In order 10 ascertain what persons nave
received the highest number OF votes, the
Governor and Council shall count aud de-
clare for any person all votes Intentionally
cast for such person, although his name
upon the ballot Is misspelled or written
with only the initial or initials Of his chris
| tian name or names; and they may hear
testimony, upon oath, Ia relation 10 such
| votes in order 10 get at the intention OF
the electors and decide accordingly. The
provision OF this section shall be applied
III uttcTihluihS ehc eiees"" " -"
officers.
In the following year (ls77) the Leg
islature made the same rule to apply IN
determining the election of members oil
Congress, Senators and Representatives
to the State Legislature, and the electors
of President and Vice President. with the
following addition:
In all cases when return Is defective
by reason of informality, n daily attested
copy OF the record may by substituted
therefor.
This is the law that should have gov
erned Gov. Garcelon and his Council IN
1879, rather than the law as it was in
1875 when interpreted by the Court up
on questions submitted by the Governor
and Council of that year.
The writer in the New Religion. with
grea, deal of apparent sclf-sa,isfaction,
asks the following questions: HAS it
come to this, that il is Infamous TO follow
the advice of Republican Court: lis
it an Infamous act to follow Republican
preceden,s - lis it an act of infamy for
Governor Garcelon and his Honorable
Council to obey statute law" We an
swer no. Ii is for violation Of statute
law, for refusing to obey the law as in
,erpretcd by the Supreme Court of the
State, and for ignoring and trampling
upon all the prccedents established by
Democrats. Wings and Republicans alike
ever since the existence of our State, that
We arraign Gov. g. and his Council. not
for obedience TO law, but for plain viola
ton of law, and for the corrupt and
fraudulent measures adopted TO force a
fraudulent State Government upon the
people. We charge that they violated
letter and spirit of the law of 1876 and
ls77 in issuing q certificate to Mr.. Cush-
man of Sherman instead of Mr.. Burnham
because his Burnham name was mis-
spell Cd by the omission of the ''h' which
is silcn, in pronunciation, for that law ex-
pressly provides for all such cases. We
charge that they violated the same law,
in issuing u certificate TO Mr.. Hobson Of
Lincoln Comfy instead of Mr.. Smith be-
cause the initials OF the name of the lat
ter were used, and for fraudulently con-
spring with the Clerk of the town Of
Someryille 10 substitute fraudulent re-
turn for the true one in order 10 defeat
the will Of the people as expressed At the
polls. We charge them with not only
violating the law, but with disregarding
the decisions OF the Court, and with
trampling upon every principle of right
and justice, and the practice of the most
infamous and fraudulent schemes such as
no sophistry can justify or ingenuity ex-
plain. No wonder that Gov Garcelon.
when accused of contemplating what he
afterwards performed, replied that he
would sooner jump into the Kennebec
River than do such thing; like one
anciently who cried out, us thy servant
dog that he should do this thing" Did
they follow the advice of the Court in
throwing out the vote Of Skowhegan:
See 81 Ne. Reports, page COZ Did they
follow the advice of the Court in throwing
out the vote of Cherry6eld: See 6j Ne Re-
ports, page $50. Whose advice and what
precedent did they follow in changing the
letter into b in the case of Oliver =.
Bragdon: No. it is because they did no,
obey statute law; because they did not
follow the advice of the Court that they
stand covered with infamy and shame.