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

ing Eew of Ward 6--are confined to tn,
ddepositing in the ballot box in that ward
20 ballots at one time, probably by the
Lewiston city clerk, presumably for tbs
benefit of the sitting members. There
We're also, ! think. in that ward eight
names checked of men as having voted
WHO, Tor one reason or another, did mol
as matter of fact, vote. / understand
tnat IT is agreed that the 26 votes or the
"A votes in case the eight are not regard
ed as part of the 26. should be exc1ud-
en. what effect does that have on the
election in Lewiston? 1t wipes out TIE
majority of Coyne and elects Kelley 4,
divides by two the majority of the other
Two sitting members and reduces il {,
less than 30 according to one view to less
than 20. That is all the effect that the
specific fraud that has been done has
upon the election. If that is all there
We're in his case, we should all ayrc,
That the majority report be accepted by
the House. But the contestants have Sc,
up and proved, as J. understand. fraud OF
a general nature; and what is the correct
rule or law as to that? | understand it
TO be this: That if the fraud that is
shown is of such a nature and extent es-
pecially II participated in by election Of
ficial> that it makes the general result
really uncertain, then the entire vote OF
the ward should be thrown outfit it
makes the general result uncertain moi
the result as to Ward g. / assume that
that is usually and perhaps always a
Democratic ward There is no question,
assume. but what that ward under a
free and fair vote would be Democratic
ward. But considering that the MAORI
ties have been reduced to 10 or 20, the
question is whether the fraud that has
been done renders uncertain the general
result and makes it doubtful whether
not the 10 or 20 majority of the other
two sitting members may not reasonably
nave been accounted for by the fraud in
Ward g.. If so. understand the rule to be
that 1t is even the duty of the House to
exclude the vote of that ward.
NOW L say two things in regard to a
vote excluding an entire ward. l say
We should be reluctant to do that We
are DISTINGUISHING honest voters when w.
do that, and therefore we should be slow
in doing it. That is one proposition Ano
the other proposition is that when the re-
suit OF the general election is rendered
uncertain by reason of the fraud. then
say we should not hesitate to throw oul
the vote of Ward 8. And so the question
is, whether the result is uncertain or not
Let me read line from an Illinois de-
cision: When the people select election
o1ncers and they disregard their duties
and aid in committing frauds in the cleo
tlon, the voter must be responsible for
the conduct of the officer to the. extent OF
losing his vote although he may be inno-
cent CT fraud. And further: The inter
est of the public should not be sacrificed
for the purpose of avoiding a wrong to
the individual voter
Briehy, what is the evidence of general
fraudulent conspiracy? l understand that
official ballots intended for Ward t
were distracted before the election
with fraudulent intent. ] understand
that after the election the ballots were
not sealed as required by law. | under
stand THAI. that omission TO have been
probably with fraudulent intent | under
stand that ballots and the check list in
Ward 4 were altered after the cleo
ton. altered after the declaration of the
result ard altered Of course with fraud
things were done by the election officials
placed there to guard the purity OF the
election. | understand they belong to the
party TO which the sitting members be-
long and | understand that what they
did was presumably for the benefit of tbs
sitting members. fraudulent consp-
Iracy against the purity of the election is
therefore proved with absolute clearness,
it seems TO ire. And it is further proved
That that fraudulent conspiracy was to
some extent carried into effect carried
into effect by the depOsitine of the % bal
lots ana by the checking of eight names
of men as having voted but VINO did not
vote.
Now. is that all? That is all the fraud
understand that is absolutely and clear
~ proved. What are we to infer. Are We
TO infer that that is all the fraud there
was? Are we to infer that the other All
ballots in Ward 6, or 439 ballots, We're
legal and Waldo Is that 2 fair presump-
ton of law and fact? Or is it rather 10
be presumed, considering the nature and
extent of .he fraud. considering the par
ticipation in it OF election officials. CON
two sitting members. is it a far infer
ence that the fraud in Ward 6 rem
dered the general results in Lewiston
really uncertain? That is the question
on which able members OF this House
differ, and honestly differ. AS for me
without attempting any further analysis
| of the evidence ii seems to me that the
| presumption fairly Heads us to conclude
| that the result in Lewiston, not in Ward
Is, but in Lewiston was fairly made
uncertain, really uncertain, by that at,
a nj ed nj iy n
| e.; and therefore / shall vote to exclude
the entire vote of that ward, and ] sup
| port the motion to substitute the mi
InCr:ty fer the majority report applause
| Mr. MOREY of Lewiston: Mr.. Speaker
| 1t has been said by two or three gentle
men who have preceded me in this de-
bate, that they desire to try this matter
according 70 tn. law and according to the
! evidence. Upon that position meet
them. But from the remarks of one. OF
the speakers who preceded me, we gather
the statements that have been going
for two or three days when We
have not had an opportunity to
meet them and contradict these re-
PORTS that are most false and de
tamatory. Now, gentlemen OF the House,
| ! ask you men to meet this question
| as a nan should meet another. | do not
ask, because 1 am OF the minority party,
| that there should be any sympathy eXer
cised on my behalf, but ] ask it in the
Sepse OF Justice: and before | am done |
!
this fraud was committed that they have
alleged, and | will show who committed
| it and IN who's behalf ii was committed.
| We will first take the question of the
marked ballots which they said appeared
| in the recount which was held by mutual
consent in the city Of Lewiston, at which
all the interested parties were present by
| themselves or by attorney. Now it has
been claimed that those ballots We're so
mutiated and so destroyed that II
lis Impossible to get at the
! correct returns. Nothing could pe far
| Their from the facts. | Will take the three
wards, and the figures that l now give
| you are those that were by agreement
presented 20 this committee, and if
make any error in the statement | will
request any gentleman to correct me. 1t
is claimed that in Ward I, Ward
IS and Ward 4. certain markings
appear upon the ballots that showed
/ through to those beneath. Results are
what tell. and what was the re-
sui: of what took place? The result OF
what took place in these three wards
when il was counted up. shows an in
crease for the Republican contestants
and a decrease for the Democrats who
sit here in your body. In Ward
George r. Haskell according to the Off
cia returns had 500 votes: according
I to the recount. so. Had there been any
mistake would not his majority have
been reduced, Jacob r. Lttle-his off
cial return was $2i and the recount, at