The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1898-10-28

the expressed wish Of the voters, exercise
the power given them under this law,
and contest the seats" The PRESS, In
commenting on this, said that when
the Maine Farmer says representative
must be thrown out by the Legislature,
it is either ignorant of the powers con-
ferred upon the Legis lature by the fun
damental law Of the State, or Is deliber-
atsly decsiving its readers. 1t can accept
either horn of this dilemma it chooses"
The Maine Farmer this week says:
So the Maine Farmer is "either ignor
anti or deliberately deoeiving" it's
renders. Let US see which Is correct The
Farmer has already stated that the Legis-
lature is the sole judge OF the election and
qualifications of it's members and no one
questions its unlimited power in these
directions. It can, as the PRESS de-
olares, Justly or unjustly. seat or unseat
any candidate, for this is within the linn
jtations of the contribution, but does the
PRESS assume to defend this positionY
This IL was which led to the count out. !"
Now If, as You declare this week
the legislature is the sole Judge Of the
election of its mem bers. and that no one
questions its undoubted power in this d.
rection, why did you say last week that
"all these gentlemen must be thrown out
by the Legislature because of their defeo-
tive ballots, should the defeated candi-
dates In opposition to the wishes of the
voters, exercise the powers given them
under this law, and contest the seatsa''
Will you be kind enough to reconcile your
declaration Of this week of unlimited
power on the part of the Legislature in
determining its membership with your
declaration of last week that the Legisla-
ture must throw out certain men, and
that too, in opposition to the will of the
voters?
Now you want to know whether the
PRESS assumes to defend the unseating
OF. a legislator justly or unjustly. The
PRESS doesn't assume to defend inius-
tice, whether committed by the legisla-
ture Tor the courts. 1t simply declared
that the Legislature had the power to I'M
seat member for any reason or no rea-
son. The Legislatures duty is to give
effect as far as possible to the will of the
people. If it finds a member has been
seated who 1t is clear was not the choice
of the people, it is perfectly right for 1t
to unseat him and give the seat to the
man who was the choice of the people
If it finds that a man has been seated,
who was the choice of the people, but who
might have been counted out II all
possible technicalities had been taken ad-
vantage of, it is Its duty to let him re-
main.
It was not the claim that the legisla.
ture could seat or unseat representatives
justly or unjustly that led to the count
out. Here again you show yourself un-
familiar with the facts. The count out
was purely the work of the Governor and
Council, which set up as a returning
board. and by taking advantage of all
the technical points which the election
laws afforded-there was no Australian
ballot law then-suoceeded in counting
a fusion majority into the House Of Rep
resentatives. subsequently the injustice
which had been done by the Governor
and Council through the iustrumenuality
Of technicalities was corrected by the
Legislature acting under tho authority
given 1t in the constitution to determine
the election Of it's own members, by
throwing out certificates founded on
technicalities and giving effect to the in
tsntion of the voters.