The Portland daily press., 1880-04-01
Lewiston Journal.l
The LiSbon-WebSter Case.

Some idea of the tortuous and indefensible
course pursued by the Governor and Council
In contingent, may be gained from a review
OF the Lisbon-Webster case in the light of the
contradictory statements of the agents in the
matter.
Before the final report of the Governor and
Council was made, the chairman of the Lisbon
board of selectmen was at Augusta, examined
the Lisbon and Webster returns and found
them all right, and inquired of q member of
the committee on elections if there was any
trouble with the returns from these towns,
and was assured there was not
The evening of the day on which the results
OF the canvass were made known, and it was
learned that William H. Thomas (Rep.) who
was elected by nearly 80 majority, had been
counted out, and Beal (Fusion) counted in, in
quiry was made of prominent member of the
Council (Mr. Foster) on what grounds this had
been done. He replied, 'because the sigma
lures of the selectmen were made in each
town by one person. On further inquiry it
was ascertained that no evidence had been
presented to this effect; that no names had
been given; that no hearing had been had; but
that the result was reached by simple exami-
natlOn Oh the returns.
Further investigation brought out tile fact
that Councillor Fogg was the mover in count
ing out Thomas; and that it was done after
Gov. Garcelon had gone home without his
knowledge or approval, and even after the list
had been made up and had included Mr.
Thomas. 1t was further ascertained that
blank signed by Gov. Garcelon was used to
make out a certificate, and that the summons
was sent without executive approval.
Within twenty-four hours after this transac-
ton, all six of the selectmen of Lisbon and
Webster appeared before Gov. Garcelon and
Council, and after informing that body what
they had learned, testified that they individ-
ually signed the returns. They then asked the
Governor and Council to inform them if there
was any other objection to the returns, as they
were prepared to testify that they had been
made up in every particular as required by
law. The Governor was also informed of the
fact that the certificate was void, in that he
had not approved the action of the Council,
and the certificate had been issued without his
knowledge.
The selectmen left under the impression that
Gov. Garcelon would correct what he admitted
to be wrong; but he took no steps to do so.
A week after the Governor and Council made
public their report, assigning reasons for count
ingout and in this report it is officially stated
that the Lisbon and Webster returns were re-
jected because they ,oere not signed in open
to,cn meeting. In other words, when it was
ascertained that the real excuse on which the
returns were rejected, viz, because it was
alleged they were forged, would not be safe,
instead of correcting the wrong, they deliber-
ately invented new excuse, contrary to what
they knew to be the fact.
But this is not all of the crookedness deyel-
oped in these cases. Feb. 2Sth, in a speech at
Auburn Hall, Mr.. Fogg said:
"In the Lisbon and Webster cases ave heard eui-
dence, and it proved that the returns were not
made or signed in open town meeting
We at once called attention to this statement
and challenged the Councillor to give the
name of a single witness who testified before
men of Lisbon and Webster, whose testimony
was that they signed the returns in open town
meeting. Our challenge was not accepted,
and for very good reason.
Saturday week our reporter called ON DIR.
Garcelon, when the following conversation
took place.
Reporter: "Can you tell me on just what ground
the Lisbon vote was thrown out?"
The Doctor: "Most certainly. There was quite
exciting contest in the Council that case. The
certificate was issued to the Fusionst and the vote
OF Lisbon thrown out on the ground Of the record,
just the same as in the Pennington case"
Reporter: "Will you allow me to ask why it was
not recalled when you found out you had wrongful
ly certiicated Mr.. Beal of Durham?''
The Doctor: ''Simply because once done, it
could not be undone. There was no recall. 1t was
then beyond my power"
Observe first that Councillor Foster says the
Lisbon and Webster returns were rejected be-
judged to be by one person. and the governor
and council admitted this by their 81
lence when inquired of by the selectmen.
Secondly, week after, they changed the ex-
cuse and officially reported, which report ap-
pears on the files, that they rejected these re-
turns because they were not signed in open
town meeting; and as late as Feb. 2Sth, Fogg
asserted in Ex-Governor Garcelons presence
that this was the reason. Yet on Saturday,
March Goth, ex-Gov. Garcelon states that the
reason for r6iactinO thaSa yya haeausa
the record, not the returns, was not made 'up
in open town meeting. Moreover, Gov. Garce-
lon knew that the certificate issued to Beal was
void as matter of law as well sa of equity,
and therefore that there was nothing in the
way OF correcting an admitted wrong. Fur
ther it is evident that he did not want to cor
rect errors, for when ex-Gov. Morrill, requested
him to embody in the questions to be addressed
to the court, one inquring whether he had
the right to recall a certificate even when reg
ularly issued, he declined to do so-evidently
expecting the court would say Eyes, and thus
make it difficult for him to avoid doing right.