Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1880-01-13

one knows when or where, signed by two fusion
scectm n Of ihatItown, who had also signed the of
ncial return, sitting that The vote was not declared
In open town meeting. and that they signed the re-
turn In blank at the meeting. and II was hed IN AZ
forwards. This Testimony was taken with no cross
examins tion and none OF the safeguards which the
courts of law or the interests OF truth demand the
party affected was not confronted with the witness
es; the evidence stood uncorroboraied ltdireciiy
contraicted the express rectas OF the return that
these same aihlnts had officially signed. And yet
the Governor and Council accept the AFFIDAVIT OF
the selectmcn true AMI reject their ofica return
ialsc in order 10 issue the certificate OF election
tn man who never elected. sticking for the
Constitution, they override the return 10 which The
Constitution connncs them, AMI base their ocrtih.
cate on n secret AMI eNpar,c affidavit which the
Constitution abhOrs.
NEWCASTLE.
The fonr towns OF Alma, Newcastle. Nsbleboro
and somcryillc together cleo one Representative.
Ky the popular vote in that district Edward X. III I'll
the republican candidate for Representative, had
a'5 vetes, and the democratic candidate 3.6 votes,
divided between James W. CLARKE, }. W. Clark
and James W. Clark. leaving Edward X. Hall
clear majority OF 200 over all others. The vote Of
Newcastle was returned 10y democratic town
clerk as ITS tor f. X. Hall. though every ballot was
cast for Edward Il. Hall. while The democratic
returned ms % for James W. CLARK, though
II IA known that the actual ballots were cast some
for James ". Clarke spelled with an Sc" some Tor
James ". Clark spelled withou. an sc" some for
!. ". CLARK and some Tor James Clark. The rccori
az the town showed the votes actually cast. the
return didno the statute oi ls''' .l!, provides
as follows
"rhc Governor and Council may receive icsti-
mony ON oath 10 prove that the return from any
town does not agree with the record of The vote 81
such town IN the number of votes or the naints al
the persons voted tor and the return when found
10 lee erroneous may he corrected by the record"
This law stands on the statute book unrcpealed
by the Legislature, unr, NeTfcd ny Tue COURT D!bu-
ing. mandatory ON every department oi The gov
eminent rs every citzcn 81 the state, designed
To- prevent the ihgartng of the popular viii as
expressed At the ballot bon. IL Is submitted tat IL
not Tepugnant Ia. but that IL seizcs upon and cN
ecutes the very spirit OF The Cohsiltntion 10y ~ ~
the before Us, all errors IN The returns would
have been corrected. But the Governor and coun.
Gil usurp the proyiucc ui the supreme Court anu
strike down ~ unconstitutional ne law that stands
in their path In order 10 count for +. h Hal The
ballo,s that Wcrr cast for Edward X Han. and to
count for James w. Clark the ballots thntwerc dts
irbutod among three or four different names
The returns themselves show that Alma and New
castle cast their democratic vote, aggrcgating rs
Tor James ". CLARK, spelled without an &C. and
Nobleboro and Somcryilc cast their dem crntr
vote, aggrcgatng 49,. for James W. Clarke, spelled
with an sc" Inc vote would then stand by the ~
turns alone Edward h. Hail. 20, D.. h. Hall
as James ". Clark. IL. James ". Clarke, ~.
and Edward h. Hall, republican, would stu DC
elected Having In the Ashland district before re-
Irrre,i 10, decplci that John Durham and John
Durham. idclH SOHaHs we're different persons, H. or
Ger defeat republican In that district hey now
decide that James W. Clarke and James W. Clark
are the same person, IN order 10 elect aidemccrat
ic representative an this district. They are consis
tent in THIS, hat though 10y opposite msan., they
vcrsal of the popular Will and the counting In Of
democratic candidates.
ENETER.
In the class Of Exeter and Garland the votes were
returned rs follows;
GarIInd.
George :. Hill, trcpl had.................... I'll
fraucis " Hill (tusionl had..................l5
Ercfcr.
e. : Hin (rcpl bad.............. ....lid
D. nill tiusipn) had........ ...............S-p
On the vote as actually east George 5. llill had
decided ma jOriiy. and not ballot was thrown IN
either town for either O.. :. Hill or b. W. Hill.
Again refusing correction and violating the plain
letter the statute Of ISL, the Governor and COun
cal counted the candidates a. four different persons
and sent the summons 10 ,. W. mn As hl'ibs uc
largest number Of votes. Their want0n disregard
of law reached thi. remarkable result That cetut'
cate election was Issued 10 NV thical p W itil
for whom not man IN the Hhols district had
voted. and was taken away from the postoficc and
will be prescn Ell Ia the Legislature 10y Francis W
Hin, the defeated candidate.
0ovLpsBoEo.
Every town but Gouldsboro relurne, ils rcpnb
can vote cast Tor Oliver T. BIagdon. In NE
,.ould-b return the initial middle letter J. hfl
line tiruVpiug down from n like the last loop OF
letter H. he letter was cyiicntly inien .ei FOR /
and was left n L ry the clerk, and to avoid uic
possibility of u mistake the downward mark hal
been partially erased so that u ended some DIS
tauce above the line Yet the Governor auh touh-
ell denying to 9O7 voters even the poor benefit Oi
a duubt, n moved the entire republican vote oi Tie
town from Mr.. BragdOn's column dl-lranSHiscd
20. ciiizens ant counted IN n democrat who WAS
never elected.
WESTON.
This district composed ~ several towns uIi
plantatiuD- IN AroO-took county, elected frtdk (.
Nickerson, Re ubhcan, for Representative. But
the town If Weston returned a. votes for Frank
Nirkcrson instead OF for Frank [. NickersDn. Inc
record gave the name correctly. IL y undcr-t"od
that the ballots printed and cast were Tor Frank
e. NickcrsOn. The statute Of Isl provides rem.
ely by The record, but again In plain violation ot
the law the Governor and Council counted IN ny
m-lority ~ IL John H. BrOwD the demo ra',Whom
the people had repudiaicd.
NEW SHARON.
This district composed Of several toms and plan
tatiou- In Franklin county gave David VI. Norton,
republican. u clear majority. The town 81 New
sharon the strongest republican town IN the dis
trict gave Mr.. Norton - majority. The return was
without law upon ia face yet without notice tot hc
tow or its oficers or In the sepr"scntitIVe VINO
WIS really elected, without hearing aud IN thc
dark they threw out the vote OF me toNh OF u'e
ground That the three signatures Of the selectmcn
were all in hand. Further, the three seleciinrn
siguiug are Nathaniel Harding, y. q. Et1wn AMI
T. Il. Cram, and the town clerk il j. I. " hitinoIc.
The signatures Of the last selcctmgn ana 81 mo
t,wu clerk are palpably unlike each other and ihe
rest.
The signatures Of tie remaining two seieeimcn
have a certain resemblance Tut suppose one tIIhtih
wrote both that would s,Iil leave two genuine ~
natures of -ccctmen, that OF the writer ana mat"
Nathaniel Harding together with the genuine ST.
nature oil the town clerk. Two sglcciintn Icing q
majority OF the board legally ami suilvlhllY Hu-
theniicate the returns by tine statute OF Maine ic
yisei statutes, !, sec. !, def &. But M linr
ding's sisnatuTe being obviously original IN The
face OF the return nave low before mc tie aiidaN-
II of John G.. Brown, one Of The t"o seie linen
whose signatures resemble each other, ~ when ne
makes oath that he signed this return Win MS own
h., 40 n Al /.