Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1880-09-14
GOING BEHIND THE RETURNS.


Seven Republican Representatives and
Senators were counted-out by Gov. Gar
celon and Council on the ground that the
returns were not signed and sealed ana
the lists recorded in the record book IN
omen town meeting The allegations are
false in part Of the cases, and not SHOWN
at an open hearing of the case. More
over the rule was n new one, never before
applied, and its application concealed from
the knowledge of the Republicans IN or
der that they might not Introduce as
they could have done, evidence to lnvaii-
date Fusion returns for this reason.
But the rule is without foundation IN
law or precedents, and contrary to the
constitution as interpreted by the Court
for many years. The Governor and
Council are simple canvassers OF returns
not Judges of elections. They have au-
thority to inquire whether the returns
are signed by the proper officers. but
when this is settled then they must
count the returns as they find them, I'M
less it is alleged that they do not agree
with the records in the names of the p0r
sons voted for and the number of votes cast,
in which case copies of the record may be
substituted. The Governor and Council
have no authority to inquire, and up to
last November never attempted to impure
whether the election was legally held and
the returns signed and sealed, and the
list. recorded in open town meeting II
the returns on the face of them appear IN
due form, signed by the proper officer,
they cannot be rejected except in the case
of plantation organized FOR election pur-
poses where the poll lists do not accom-
pany them. This rule is clearly stated
in the opinion OF the Supreme Cour; in
1871, as folIows:-
If the returns 10 not appear to nc signed
by the proper Ulcers, they must be disre
glrdcd. Sa IL the names signed be forge
rieS. The result j. that the Gov.
ernor aud Council can only act upon the
returns signed and returned by the proper
officers except In reference 10 the number
OF votes aud persons voted for, the stat
ute permitted no discretion In the per-
| form tnce OF their duty. Rep., Vol.
| 81, i. .jJI.
The Governor aud Council, in comparing
aud examining the returns OF votes and In
declaring who are elected act ~ a conyasS-
| ing board. They oHiy kno,- t-hat he re-
| turns iadicoie. IN their DircstigliioRS they
dre limited % The eridence dcrirdbie from
| the returns transmitted 10 them, except when
their powers have been enlarged by stat
ute. Ne Rep, TOi 81, Pj97.
The Governor ard Council "are limited
&c the evidence derivable from the re-
turns and as the returns duly signed
state that an election was held and the
return made out as provided by law, the
Governor and Council have no right to
receive word Of evidence 10 contradict
this .;.;cmoat This has always been
the law and the practice up to last No
vcmbcr; and when Gov GArcclon and
Council received and acted on o. parte
atlidavits coGiTadioting the returns, and
"a such evidence rejected returns on the
ground that they were rot signed and
sealed in open town meeting, they delib-
cratcly violated the constitution and the
laws as interpreted by the Court - LetC-
| idOH Journal