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

The following is the statement made to the
Republican Advisory committee By Of'ilie
ID. Baker, esq, who has been a.ting -
counsel:
To the Republican 1GrisoVy Committee.
Acting "a couucil for the committee. it has been
my duty To examine the grounds on winch twenty.
nine Republican Representatives, fairly CHOSEN NJ
the September election. have been counted out oy
the Governor and Council, and proceed 10 give
eHch case With such details as restricted access To
M. returns and meagre abstracts nom ofidal re-
ports given To the public will permit. An error IN
the grounds stated will be due n our persisent ex
cusion from the facts and Official records many
of these cases have been partially fully stated
before but give them copnectediy In ths report
IN order TO present the entire TRANSACTION nj one
view.
THE PORTLAND CASE
The city OF Portland chose 1--WE Republican Rep
rcsentatives by an average majority oil oSs votes'
In the return lt3 votes were placed oPposie the
word "saattering." FOR this reason the cntire re-
turn was rejected, and Portland was deprised Oh
representatioD. II WAS urged before The Gorernor
and Council that no evidence Whatever vas oetore
them 10 show that ii3 ballots with simply the word
"scatterng" thereon were notcsst rs returneds ana
furthermore. that granting the irregulArity vas
obvious tho face OF the return thai the voses OPP
posie the word scattering" could not be 50 placed
or arranged as 10 destroy affect the plurality or
even the absolute majority OF any one OF me nve
Republican candidates. After deprivins Portland
Council declined TO authorize q new election, so
that IL appears 10 have been an INTENTIONAL ucssn
exclude Portland from all voice or vote ID tne OF.
ganiEation OF the Legislature. Inc desuucaon OF
Portlands right of representation il rendered all
the more significant from the fact that the return Oh
the last year well as this year contained woes
returned as scattering" Last year the iaslon party
carried Portland by majority Of hfty, and Govern
or Common and his Republican Council countoa IN
every fusion Representative withou: hesiAton. Inc
cases In this State are nuRerous where tne woIu
% been
gubernatorial vote by the Legislature down W the
smallest town officer, and the exclusion OF fofuAnu
by Governor Garcelon aud his Council 10 the brst
known instance in which . return has been insaii'
In the very irst election Of Maine as State when
William King WAS chosen rs governor In l6so tne
word 'scatierfng" appeared IN the returns Oh some
towns The canvassing boari was composed In
large part OF men who mad taken part IN Inc lorna
ton OF the constitution the same year. us zig.
niucant msta nee that board thus composed
should order That the word "scattering" di nos In
validate a return, thus giving ne me outse. con,
struction TO the constitution by tne men Wno hao
assisted In framing II. A.,
BY the consultation IL Is made the duy Oh me
Governor and Council to Issue ceruncate tc 'ne
person who appears 10y the face OF the return I'd DC
elected. BY the Portland return Construed IN any
possible way II unmistakably appears that me nse
republican Candidates received clear majority oi
ali the votes cast But the Governor ana CounciI
refused 10 all Ave the certificate The consttuuon
commands.
LEWISTON, sAco, hath AND RocKLAsp.
The four other DISTINGUISHED cities, Lewiston, "a
CO. Bath and kockland, were, Ike Poruands aenied
Representation, but for different reason. In Ae
aggregate, the four cities are entitled 70 seven rep
resentatives, and they were all disfranchisea ior
the same reason named, THAT the election return
nom each city was signed by only three aldermen.
whereas the governor and council decided inat y
required four. Under the understood practice Oh
former governors and councils, this detect was ca
sily supplied from the record, but Gov. Garcelon
and his council refused TO allow this correction.
The wrong done these cities 10 greatly aggravated