The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1880-06-22
THAT ANSWER.
An Explanation that Needs Explaining.

Gov. Garcelon and Council to the report of the
Hale Committee. The answer is not new
one, but is the same that was printed in the
Boston Sunday Globe several weeks ago. 1t
is signed by Gov. Garcelon and all the men,
bers of the Council except John B. Foster and
Edward G. Moody. Since the first appearance
Of this answer the evidence taken by the Hale
committee has been printed precisely in the
language it was given, and it is now possible to
show the falsity of this answer and the reck-
lessness of one man at least who signs it VIZ:
Alonzo Garcelon We are inclined to think
that before the Fusionists get through handling
this gun they will find it like those in the
old couplet, which bore wide and kicked
their owners ever.
One paragraph in the answer relates to Per-
kins Plantation, and is as follows:
The committee seem to have been aetuated
by combination of motives in the investiga-
ton of the returns from Perkins Plantation,
Here the Fusion candidate for Senator received
fourteen votes and the Republican candidate
thirteen. The committee claim that under the
rules established by the Governor and Council,
this return could not be counted because the
whole number OF ballots was not stated, and to
save this feeble majority of one for the Flu
sionists, forgery has been committed. Every
person committing crime is supposed to have
some motive for doing it. What motive could
have possibly induced the commission of for
gerry In this instance we cannot perceive. The
Republicans claimed only majority of seven
for their candidate, Mr.. Fernald, which was
entirely overcome by the rejection of the
towns Of New Sharon and Pennington, either
OF these towns more than changing the major
ity of seven claimed.
This explanation does not touch at all the
vital question in regard to Perkins plantation.
1t is the counting of the representative return
from that town that needs explanation. 1t
will be remembered that Perkins is classed
with Pennington. The district was Republi-
can by heavy majority, but by throwing out
Pennington on the ground that the return or
the record was not made up in open town
meeting, and counting Perkins in spite of the
was declared elected. On this point we will
cite Garcelon's testimony before the Hale
committee:
O. find, and call your attention to it, that
the Council adopted rule that the whole
Was that rule adopted and followed out?
A-Correctly stated.
Q-That the whole number of ballots on the
return must appear?
ADJUST appear" yes. that was the rule.
Q-Was that rule followed?
Ayes, sir
Q-Look at the Representative tabulation
from Franklin county, Pennington district.
and see what was the result of throwing ont
Pennington?
A-The result was that Perkins Plantation
elected.
Q-That is, there was one vote in favor of
Voter, and by rejecting Pennington it threw
the election upon Perkins Plantation?
Ayes
Q-What was the whole number of votes
thrown there?
A-Twenty- That plantation should
have been rejected; there is no whole number
of votes given.
CIT was not rejected?
A-No; sir.
Q-What was the vote as thrown?
A-Thirteen for Thomas; fourteen for Voter.
Q-Giving one majority for Voter?
Ayes.
Q-And on that plantation the certif cate
was issued to Voter?
Ayes, it so appears.
Q-So that the S3S votes of Pennington were
thrown out?
A-They should both of them have been
thrown out.
Off both of them had been thrown out no.
body would have received the certificate?
A-No. That is q matter | never saw be-
fore.
1t cannot be claimed by the most stupid de-
fender of the count that the Hale committee
altered this return. The defect was an omis-
sion, and if anything had been scratched out it
could have been easily discovered. When
Garcelon met with his Council to make up
his answer he had full knowledge of the
crookedness in the Perkins case. And yet he
puts his name to paper which declares that
the count was constitutional, that the rules
laid down were impartially enforced and that
the count was honest and fair, and yet this
answer contains not one word of explanation
of this Perkins case, which but short time
before he had declared crooked and in viola
ton of the rules of the Council, and from the
odium of which he sought to relieve himself
by saying that he knew nothing about it.
Gov. Garcelon complained to the Hale COM
mittee that the papers had frequently said that
he was natural born fool. He ought to con-
graduate himself that they said nothing worse
Let us look at another case, that of Somer-
vile. Here the return was counted and by
means of it Fusion Senator was counted in
in Lincoln county. Again we cite from Gar
celon's testimony:
O. call your attention now to the principle
laid down by you, in which L believe there
was no exception, as you understand, that the
name of the municipal officers signing must
be all in their original hand writing.
Ayes.
Off not they were thrown out?
A-That was the design X
Q-LOok at the Senatorial return from Som
erville and see if upon that it is clearly evil
dent that the last three names were signed by
the same man?
Al hoy
that
Csc that ought to have been thrown out,
too?
A-Yes sir.
We have searched the answer in vain for
any explanation of this performance. There
was an explanation given by Mr.. Fogg to the
effect that the similarity of signatures was not
noticed, but as Mr.. Fogg has since declared
that he was away in New York or Boston, or
somewhere else, when the tabulations were
made and that the Democrats in the Council
were responsible for the crookedness if there
was any, his explanation is not worth much
His fellow tabulators did not consider it of
any consequence evidently, for they neglected
to incorporate it in their answer. Yet with
this case, which Garcelon admitted vas crook
ed, unexplained, Garcelon is ready to swear
that the count was legal, constitutional, hon
est and impartial.
Again. Here is paragraph from the ans
wer in the case of the town of Buckfeld:
The Ha lie committee claim that in the re-
turns for county officers from the towns of
Buckfeld and Browntield the names of the
towns have been written in by someone since
they were received at Augusta, so that now
they show from what towns they came from,
and that before this change was made there
was nothing to show where the papers came
from. What possible motive any member of
the Council could have had to make these cor
rections, it is difficult to understand. In the
first place each one Of the returns came en-
closed in official envelopes which contained on
their face certificate signed by the municipal
officers, telling what the return was and what
town it came from. Then there was filing
written on the back of the return by one of
the municipal officers showing what town it
came from. In the next place the Governor
and Council considered all the returns for
county officers whose elections were regulated
by statute to be correctable under the law of
1877. In no single instance did they refuse to
allow these corrections to be made when there
was return properly signed, and under this
law they corrected the returns for several Re-
publican candidates for county officers when,
if such corrections had not been made, they
would have been defeated. We have 20 rec
objection about the returns from these two
towns. If we could see them we MIGHT he