Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-02-06
MAINE LEGISLATURE.
Continued from page %


~ votes or even beyond IS votes?" They
admit that il ty. any possibility, tthey
can't complain, of that, I'm using Their
own words), the fraud could have eX-
tended beyond So votes then Ward
should be rejected, and yet, in the report
they ask that the contestants have 100
prove beyond reasonable doubt that
enough fraudulent ballots were cast to
change the election 1t is self evident IN
reading the case of Prince VS.. Skillin
that it is directly contra to the conciu-
sions as rendered by the committee. Our
next point is in regard to the burden Of
proof as explained by the committee
At:orney-General VS.. Newell. * Maine
81, and attempt TO show that it is not
authority for the statement that the bur-
den Is on The incumbent to prove his
valid election. Without giving any au-
rhorities or reasons, except those stated
a few moments ago, and which were
shown to have been based on defective
reasoning, they assume that the bur-
der of proof rests on the contestants in
this case, and that they must prove a
sufficient number of Illegal votes to have
changed the election, thus in effect al
lowing the parties who have been proven
guilty Of fraud to lie complacently back
while the contestants. having fairly
proven fraud, fail to obtain their just de-
serts, simply because they cannot prove
beyond a reasonable doubt (see page IL
of the reporD that few votes which
would have changed the election, were
fraudulent.
In the name of right commonsense and
justice, such should not be the law. BY
judicial decision such is not the raw.
Newell, cited in the report, it was held
that the returns being shown to be
Fraudulent the burden is on the incum-
bent to show enough legal votes to elect
him.
The report in citing this case, attempts
10 show that this principle does not APP
ply to the case before us. Why does it
not apply? The statement or error on
page 10 as 10 quo warranto, why shouidn
the same principle apply here, a person
K a,
House. has certificate of election, II
that is shown TO be fraudulent he stands
IS il he had no such certificate at all,
and the burden is on him to show a suf1l-
cient number of legal votes To elect him.
How, then. can it be claimed that the
burden IL contestant to prove beyond
a reasonable doubt just how many fraud
ulcnt votes were east.
The report says near top of page 10
that the burden Of proof does not shift
as the case progresses. True, and on that
one point we will sustain our case. You
VII admit ih4a st any III, inea a IND 6 bold 'h If
without giving sure evidence of his right
to it. If ne is challenged BY anyone can
not entitled to it?" No, he must pro-
duce his certificate or other evidence OF
his valid election. On whom, then is the
burden of proof? On the incumbent, isn't
il? and yet. the report says and we agree
with it that the burden never shifts.
From the beginning the burden is on n ,ne
'rhat burden is so shown in the first in
stance w the production of his certii-
cate of election. this certificate having
been rebutted by evidence of fraud which
might possibly have changed the result
Of the votes, then the certificate being
shown to be invalid, the incumbent stands
as If he had no certificate, and ne must
go on and prove that in spite of the
fraud yet he has a sufficient plumber of
legal votes to elect him.
In other words, an uncertain number
Of votes having been shown to be illegal
In this case and, according to law. the
for u I'd, & CHI thrown
and the incumbents should be allowed
only such votes in this ward as they
proved were legally cast for them They
have shown no such votes, they should be
entitled to none.
The claim has been made that both
sides cheated IL this ward. We have no
evidence of such, and. if such is true, III
the more reason why the whole ward
should be thrown out
'rhe fact that it happens to be three
Republicans who would gain by ADOPT
ing the minority report is immateriai IN
cest'' Pol tic 's shond not enter ito It
ard believe that influence in it has not.
The fact that DEMOCRATS commltted the
should not be blinded by sentiment. nor
II false sense of what constitutes unfair
ness. Our zest to be fair TO the
Democratic incumbents should not cause
as To overstep the bounds and be unfair
TO the Republican constituents. II is no
worse for the innocent lncum DENTS 70
be incumbents from their Just deserts
The opposition win attempt to show
that &c ballots were the extent of the
fraud. What evidence have we that the
first count was not correct Those bal
lois were counted and then as soon as
IL was known recount would be asked
for they were mutilated so as TO render
AN accurate recount Impossible. tSee
committee report. page 10, 49,. g
Does not that fact alone prove that II
there had been "a. recount the three re.
publican constituents could nave gained
t;Jse why were the ballots mutilated?
n he,
least ~ bullots were added, very good
evidence that nine other votes We're
illegally cast and that the ballots We're
mutilated to prevent a recount which +
conclusive evidence that the hrst count
was not correct. What reasonable man
can claim that the fraud has been SHOWN
~ have been confined to such limits that
il could not possibly have change the re-
suli2
We claim that IL has been shown to
have been SO general that it not only
might possibly have changed the result,
put that without doubt 1t qua chanse the
qcs,I,t.
The majority and minority agree on the
facts and the only conclusion to be
reached is that had the majority rightly
construed the law in the cases cited IN
support of their report they would have
yn,oheI the same conclusion as was
reached by the minority.
Hir II Is not solely a question OF G1gnt
and wrong. 1t is never question of com
promise or sentiment. but shall we decide
this case according to the law as the lay law
and | sincerely hone the minority report
,yilI be adopted. (Applause.)
Mr. POTTER of Brunswick: Mr.. SPEAK
err, I remember. a good mary years ago.
in ore of the galleries Of this House, OF
hearing the then member from ELLSWORTH,
now a senator from this state. say
Nothing is more fundamental and vital
10 us here than the membership OF TINS
House That proposition is as true now
az IL was then. Then the pohticai com e.
piexicn of the House turned on the mem
har