Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-01-14

three men who intended to vote for
MIR. Michaud, whether they are TO
lose their votes because they got their
stickers 1-24 of an inch below perhaps
where they should under the laws and
procedure Of this court have placed
them? That is the question and the
only question concerned in these three
ballots. The same question came up
in the Harmon and Clement case and
was argued there before the commit
tee, and the majority Of the commit
tee felt then that those ballots should
be counted. There were not, however,
enough ballots of that kind so that
ruling against Mr.. Harmon on two
Of the ballots which he claimed he
lost Mr.. Harmon. the Democratic con-
testant, lost that according to the
Judgment Of all the members of the
committee, and accordingly that re-
port has gone in and has been adopt
ed and Mr.. Clement has been con-
firmed in his seat here, as he proba-
| bly, thought and should have known
in the Judgment of our committee he
was fairly entitled to it. 1t was an
argument and a debatable question;
| there was one ballot which could
have been counted either way; but
| the Democrats on that committee felt
! if Mr.. Clement had been elected to
| this Legislature he ought to have his
| seat, and if he had not been elected
| to this Legislature, he should not,
and feeling that he had been properly
elected they joined with the Repub-
licans in signing the unanimous re-
port Of the committee which you have
already adopted.
Now, on the question of these stick
ers there is a divergence Of judicial
opinion, I am willing to admit, and it
| is a fact that the supreme court or
this State in the much discussed case
of Bartlett VS.. Mcintyre, wherein the
| sheriff of Oxford county was the
| subject under discussion-In that case,
the supreme court decided that the
stickers cast for Mr. Mcintyre, the
! Democratic candidate for sheriff,
should not be counted for him, and
they threw out those ballots and did
| net count them for Mr.. Mcintyre, ana
| as a result his opponent was elected;
and that, so far as the supreme court
is concerned settles the law. and un-
til the supreme court sees fit to chanse
it's mind, 1t settles the law as far as
| the law is concerned.
would, however. call to the atten-
| ton of every attorney here, and
! would call also to the attention OF
every layman, whoever reads legal
report, and ask you at some time
| to look at the opinion in the case
| of Bartlett against Mcintyre upon that
! point The Supreme Court Of Maine
that question
| lust four lines, taking up no more
space on the page tnan that, and there
! is no discussion. no argument, no cl-
| tation Of cases at all; they simply say
he has not voted in the manner that
TIE statute provides and consequently
| the votes cannot be counted, ana
there they stop and that is all there
| is to it. 1t is strange situation, Gen
| tlemen, that that case was decided
that way, for this reason, that there
| is in these United States, in Eng
land, in Scotland and in the National
House Of Representatives an almost
unbroken line Of decisions holding ex-
! actly the reverse to what the Supreme
Court of Maine held in that case. The
question has come up time and time
again. The Maine Supreme Court sail
in the beginning Of that opinion in tho
case of Bartlett VS.. Mcintyre that the
statutes in other states were differ
ent from our statutes and that for
that reason the cases from other
states had no significance. There may
! be such a divergence in the statutes
that such statement by the Court