Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1880-01-02
MEMORANDA.

preme court:
First-Is it the duty of the governor
and council, in canvassing the returns
for senators and representatives to the
legislature, to allow correction thereon,
by the record, under the constitution
and laws Of the state, and to what cases
can such correction extend? 1t not
their duty, have they the right or pow
er to allow such correction at their OPP
ton?
Seconds return signed by less
than majority of the aldermen of
city so defective that it cannot be count
ed as it stands. If so defective, can
duly. attested copy of the record be
substituted for it and be legally count
land and Saco are referred to.
Thirds a return which places a
number of votes opposite the word
Scattering" SO defective that it cannot
be counted, when the whole number Of
votes so placed added to any minority
candidate would still leave clear plu-
raity to another candidate, and if so
defective on its face, can it be corrected
by the record? The case referred to is
the city of Portland.
Fourth-If q return has not the sig
nature of the town clerk, as in the case
of Lebanon and Albion, can duly att
tested copy of the record be substituted
therefor, and the vote be legally count
ed
Fifth-Have the governor and coun-
Gil any right to reject u return bearing
the personal signatures of the clerk and
u majoritv Of the municipal officers, be-
cause from the evidence adduced they
are satisfied it was not signed or sealed
III open town meeting, or was signed by
the selectmen in blank at the meeting,
and after adjournment filled in by the
clerk, or because if one of the select
men signed the return in blank, filling
III the name of the town and of the
county beforethe town meeting, the 9TH
er two signing and sealing in open town
meeting, (the alleged cases of Joy,
Stoneham, Lisbon and other towns are
referred toy; or because the return was
sent to the secretary of states office un.
sealed, as it is alleged in the case Of
Searsport; or because the record speci-
fled in the constitution, article four. part
one, section five, was not made up in
the presence of the selectmen and in
open town meeting, rs is alleged in the
case of Webster, Lisbon and other
towns, especially if n written memo
randum OF the persons voted for,
with the number of votes for
each person against his name, is
made by the clerk in the presence of
the selectmen and in open town meet
ing, though not put upon the record
book of the town until after the meet
ing adjourned; or because one of the
selectmen signing is an alien, as al
legged in the case of Cnerryfield, all the
other signatures being regular in all re-
spects; or because the de facto Ulcers
who sign the returns from any cause
were not legally chosen, and merely dis
qualified from holding he office; or
because the returns is attested by a
clerk pro TEN, rs III the case of Vance
boro, or by deputy clerk, rs in the
case of Scarboro; or because y second
return was sent to the secretary of state,
differing from the first in number OF
votes returned for the various candi-
dates, under facts of the Greenfield
case, have the governor and council
any right to receive evidence on either
of the above points, and if SO, on which
Sxth--Is it competent for the COVER
nor and council, when return states
the names of the persons voted for and
the number of votes for each, and each
signature is genuine, to admit evidence
aliunde as to any neglect of the town
officers before, or at town meeting, to
comply with the various requirements
-. q, ,,,I Inn
Seventh-Is it the duty Of the COVER.
nor and council or have they the right
to reject returns because the whole
number of ballots is not stated therein,
rs IN 0tistield and other towns, or be-
cause the whole number of ballots diff
) fers from the sum of votes returned for
several candidates rs in the case oil
Pennington and other towns?
Eichth-Has ballot with the names
of candidates printed in two columns
instead Of one, n distinguishing marx
within the meaning OF the statute SO
that ii should not be received into the
ballot box? II so received and return.
ed is it the duty Of the governor and
council to count, even if a protest with
specimen ballot is annexed to and
sealed up with the returns by the Sc.
leclmen and the returns made subject
to the legality Of tie ballot as alleged II
the case OF SkowheganH
!. Ninth--Should the votes returned a.
cast fer John Durham and John Bur.
! nam be- counted Tor the same or two
. different persons, or votes returned for
0lford and Afford Cushman, or fol
james w. Clark and James w. Clarke
or for John L. Wallace or John I.
Wallace, Jr. Are these and all other
errors III the names and initials at the
persons voted for, correctable by tbs
| record
) GOV. GAECFLoN's REPLY.
II WAS reported from Augusta Dec
: Goth, that G ". Garcelon had decided
not 10 submit the questions indicated by
Mr.. Morrill, Is the supreme court, hold
: ing THAI nearly all the points have al
ready been adjudicated upon; and fnr
: Their that there could not be oppor
tunity u organize legal legislature i
I the decision of the count were awaited ,as