The Portland daily press., 1880-09-04
THE PORTLAND CASE.
HOW THE TABULATORS SOUGHT TO
SWINDLE THE CITY.
Opinion OF the Supreme Court Concern
ing the Fraud

The return from the city of Portland was
duly signed and showed upon its face all the
facts necessary to constitute legal election.
1t showed the whole number of ballots given
and that Moses M. Butler, Almon A. Strout,
Ruel S. Maxcey, Samuel A. True, and Nathan
e. Redlon each received over six hundred aud
forty votes plurality over each of the cardi.
dates opposed to them. The only defect alleg-
ed to exist in said return was that it contained
the words and figures Scattering, one hun
dred and forty-three, 49," But this number
If added or subtracted or disregarded would
still leave each of the candidates above named
a large majority of all the votes cast as above
stated. The Governor and Council rejected
said return and refused to summon the five
Representatives above named, who were elect
ed and appeared to be elected by plurality of
all the votes returned, to attend and take their
seats; and refused to report their names and
residences to the Secretary of State, to be in
cluded IN the certified roll to be furnished by
him to the clerk of the preceding House Ct
Representatives, as required by law.
Subsequently to the making of said return,
Moses M. Butler, one of said Representatives
elect. died, and in pursuance of the provisions
of chapter 4, sections 3S, Al and Al, of the re-
vised statutes, new election was ordered by
the municipal officers of the city of Portland
and at such election Byron d. Verrill was
elected by majority of over one thousand
votes over all others, and proper return was
made to the office of the Secretary of State
but no summons was ever issued to said Ver-
rill, and the Governor and Council refused to
report his name to the Secretary of State for
the purposes above stated.
The above are the facts in the case, and in
view of them and of the cases of the other dis
franchised cities. the Legislature whose legali-
ty the Court recognized, submitted to the Court
the following questions:
when twelve persons are legally elected
members of the House of Representatives from
the five cities of Portland, Lewiston, Rock
land, Bath and Saco, and that fact unmistaka-
bly, appears oD the official returns and by the
decision OF the court IN the facts recited in the
statement herewith submitted, have those
twelve members elect a right to take part in
ings of the House withouU summons from
the Governor and Council, no other persons
holding summonses for the same seats?''
To the question the Court made the follow
ing conclusive reply:
To the eighteenth question we answer as
follows: 1t appears from the statement of facts
that the members from the five cities of Port
land, Lewiston, Rockland, Bath and Saco
were duly elected as we'll as by the returns be-
fore the Governor and Council; that by law a
summons should of right have been issued to
them; that in fact no summons was issued.
and that their names were not borne on the
roll certified to the House as provided by R. S.
n Y11nf ion L.
that these members appearing by the returns
before the House to have been duly elected,
should be permitted to participate in its Or
ganization, but the assistant clerk refused to
put. the motion and to entertain an ap-
peal. By the constitution the returns
were before the House. By those
returns the Representatives above named
appeared to be elected. Their seats were not
contested The Governor and Council could
not without a violation OF their constitutional
duty neglect to issue to them a summons, nor
the Secretary of State to place their names on
the certified roll which it was his duty to fur
nish
The Governor and Council could not legally
withhold their summons from those appearing
to be elected. They could not order a sum-
and withhold it from Others If they could, it
would be in their power to select from the
members appearing to be elected those who
should and those who should nots take part in
tne organization OF the House. The section
25 r. S., c. 2, restricts the vote to those whose
names are borne on the certified roll. The
restricting the vote to those only who whose
names are thus borne is at variance with the
constitution in SO far as it restricts and limits
the action of the House to those whom the
Governor and Council may select, and not to
those appearing to be chosen and to those the
House may determine to be members. The
twelve members had right to act in the Or
ganization of the House. Their election was
patent on inspection of the returns. The
House in no way denied their right. The
question whether their names should be added
to the roll was not submitted to it's determina-
tion Upon the facts set forth they appeared
to be and were elected, and it is not to be pre-
sumed that the House knowing such facts
would have prohibited their action if the Clerk
had permitted the question to be put. These
members had right to take part in the organ
ization of the House until it should otherwise
determine.