New Ulm weekly review. [volume] (New Ulm, Minn.) 1878-1892, 1880-01-14
I, =WEDNEsDAY,JANUARY AZ, 1880.

] within the week. One day it will be
freezing; the next thawing. One day
4 it will be snow and the next rain. One
day you can harness into sleigh, but
/ the next you will have to roll around
on wheels. The moon will shine out
mall his strength at midnight; but
long before you are up in the morning,
unless you are a very early riser, the
storm Of snow, or rain, or sleet will
beat against your windows. The vari.
ETY. of weather Nature furnished the
people hereabouts is truly wonderful.
But there is Il new kind of breeze up
in Maine which the Democrats and
Greenbackers have raised for the spe-
cial benefit of themselves. 1t is no Sc
cret what the breeze is; but there is
some doubt as to the facts.
AS near as l can get at them from a
wide and impartial reading they are
these:
| /. AT the last election there was no
choice for Governor by the people.
2. On the legislative tickets the Re-
publicans had not far from 5000 ma
jority, which gave them a majority of
seven in the senate and twenty-nine in
the House. :
| 3. That this result was correct is
shown by the duplicate copies Of the
lists OF votes forwarded to the Office
Of the Secretary of State by the clerks
of the several towns and cities; and by
the original sealed returns as opened
by the Governor and Council.
Instead of counting, however, accor-
ding to these returns the Governor and
| Council counted out eight Republican
| senators, and twenty-nine Republican
representatives. In their places eight
Democratic and Greenback Senators
and seventeen representatives have
been counted in. There are twelve
vacancies from five Of the principal
cities.
Now with reference to this bold feat
| these pointed facts may be made:
l. These men counted out were Ion.
estly elected. There is no evidence of
fraud, some Democratic papers to the
contrary notwithstanding. The cleo
ton was an honest one.
2. It is not denied that these men
cast out were truly the recipients of
the votes declared and returned.
3. But the claim is that the votes
were defective. Either the defect
was in the initials of the names of cam
didates, or in omissions of the full
number of signatures of municipal Off
GERS, or in some technical error.
In other words three fourths of the
men rejected were thrown out on tech.
nical errors many of which were i'm.
material.
4. These errors could have been cor,
rected, as provided by statute enacted
in 1877, and had been done in previous
elections. This act, the Governor and
Council, usurping the powers of the
Supreme Court, decided to be in con
hict with the Constitution, and 50 the
errors were not corrected as provided
by law.
S. The others who"'wer counted out
were thus disposed of for trifling er
rors in the printing of the ballots. Thus
the representative from Skowhegan re-
ceived more than two-thirds of the
vote polled; but fusionist was count
ed into his seat. And why? because
the Republican ballots had the names
of candidates printed in double col
umns and this was judged to consti
tute the Distinguishing mark pro
hibited by statute. The judges in the
election decided otherwise; and the
same law provides that $40 cote shall
be rejected on this account, after ilhas
been received in the ballot bor.''
6. It is strange that no irregularities
were found in the returns that elected
either Democrats or Greenbackers
The fatal defects were all confined
to returns showing the election of Re
publicans. 1t is strange.
| 7. The original returns were withheld
illegally, from the inspection of any
Republican for five weeks after it i,
acknowledged they were opened.
8. 1t is susceptible of proof that flu
sion returns were tempered with
Does this account for their genera
correctness!
This is the breeze that blows dow1
in Maine and it is a regular politica
"blizzard. Whether it will blow thu
Democratic candidate into the Whit,
House next year is to be seen. 1t ma.
blow him sky high.
Staffordville, Ct. Jan. l, 1880.