Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-02-06

I the fraud was in Ward 6 in Lewiston.
have not had it explained to me. hay
not heard it explained on the fioo- of th
House
This is not case to be decided on part
lines. and | trust that have not been az
cused of trying to be so eminently fai
. towards the PARTY with whom l was nc
in sympathy that | bent backwards.
have been compelled to come to the cor
clusion to which / have arrived in thi
!, matter. The majority of the commute
are perfectly willing to give the city O
Lewiston in its politics what benefit W
can; we are not willing to go beyond ii
and trust that there are still in this, 20
litical Sodom sufficient honest men s,
that the city will escape destruction
daughter and applausej.o sid saf pt
Those who have discussed. thiss ease
with the exception of the gentleman from
Brunswick (Hr POTTERY. have nbsoiHteiy
misunderstood or liisreprese1fteds tie bo-
sition of the majority OF this committee
| the committee differs about the facts
we do not believe about the law, and the
| only fact there is in this case is the fact
rs to what the fraud was in Ward 6, and
whether we can say that it did not extend
beyond certain point. But first let me
say in regard to the burden of proof that
| this case was presented to the commit
tee by eminent counsel and they were in
formed before they started in that thu
| committee would proceed on any rules
| that they might agree on which the COM
| mittee thought were proper, and that in
the absence of any agreement on their
part the hearing would be conducted OH n
parallel with the ordinary case in court.
They did not agree, they went on on that
basis. and who assumed the burden of
proof? The contestants. They properly
assumed it. Who claimed it before they
got through? Who claimed the right to
close? The contestants. The committee
ruled that they had it, and they gave il
to them; and l am surprised to find men,
bers on this floor who need to dispute the
eminent counsel who presented this case
for the contestants in order to justify
themselves in voting for the minority
report.
AS has been said, you are not to decide
this case on party lines or on any other
lines except the law and the facts. No
one has had the temerity to say on this
floor that the urgency of his politics re-
Quired that he should sustain the minority
report. But is not that the argument mat
has been made off this floor? But by their
failure 10 urge it on this floor they admit
that it is not proper consideration. You
are made by the constitution of Maine,
not the electors of representatives in this
House, you are made the Judge of the
1la -
pass upon this case a Judge; and those
who advocate the minority report ac-
knowledge that when they do not dare to
urge any other considerations before you.
Have they urged any other anywhere
else? The Lewiston Journal of January
9th, said; I'VE expect the same tiispas-
sionate ruling from the eminent gentle
men of the committee on elections as we
do from the supreme court of the State
that knows no party" That is the mind
in which the members of the committee
approached this case. What does the
Lewiston Journal of this morning say?
They have perused the reports. They say
now: THE Legislature has moral duty
as we'll as legal obligation to discharge"
They, urge the moral consideration, this
liioi iHNS, d Wtch ago lney uESGu lIlll II
should be decided as a judge in the court
would decide it.
The gentleman from Lincoln (Ir.
-Weatherbee) states that these various
ballots distracted may have been used,
to be marked and then delivered to some
one to be put into the box. l can imagine
q hundred ways in which fraud might
nave been committed in the city of Lew
iston or anywhere else. But we are not
deciding this case on imagination. But
it is significant fact that the only evil
dence of that kind of thing is the evil
dence that such was attempted by a Re-
publican ballot clerk. Gentlemen, l blush
for shame when that thing is mentioned
1t has been urged here that the ballot
box and the checklists We're not sealed
Whether they were sealed or not make
any difference in the vote that was cast.
The sealing took place after the election
was over. The minority of the committee
say that they cannot tell how extensive
the fraud was. Your committee believe
that the effect of said fraud in said Ward
8 was sufficient to change or render uncer-
tain the results of said election" They
say they believe that in their report; |
have they given you any good reason for
it? No, gentlemen, they don't believe it |
1t is not a matter of belief it is simply a
matter of faith. They don't explain why. |
Fhey walk by faith and not by sight. |
They depend on that peculiar element
which the Scriptures say is the substance
of things hoped for. the evidence of things |
unseen. daughter and applause)
Now there is no difference in the com |
mittee as to the law No one of the ma
jority of this committee says you shall |
only detect fraud in so far as it has
been shown to exist. There is no sucl, |
thing in the report We simply say that |
it should not be wholly rejected unless BY
fraud the result has been made uncertain. |
| agree with the gentleman from Bruins
wick in the conclusion to which he ar. |
rived until he reached the point where
he says that the ballots being marked |
after election in the various wards show
such fraud that we should throw out a |
majority of IL or six or whatever it NAV
be, on the other figures. He admits that |
without that he cannot unseat the sitting
members. Now what is the fact as to |
the marking of the ballots after |