Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1917-12-13

a
..,,nlssioner OF sea and shore fish
..ss IN his argument filed with Gov.
,,,rrken Wednesday why the petitions
referendum on the act passed at
10 las, session of the Legislature to
..olish the office OF commissioner of
=. and shore fisheries and create a
,wrisslun OF sea and shore fisheries,
attends that from the figures that he
H., made from the evidence il appears
!, MIN that there should be at least
I, 40o valid petitioners, or as the con-
.ru,ion SAYS electors"
in these petitions that have called
\. ,,,lr attention We're accepted, there
.,.,,.8 h. "A considerable number more
.,me. tn excess OF 10000. even il you
.eo,,ld reject those names that you do
m. ana appearing on the voting lists
q, the several cities and towns of
,brh tl, clerks have certified do so
,rns,r and ~ IL even possible TO
.'rira'" some of the petitions that /
ave mentioned here that should be
,ounted and still have names in excess
IN o0n says Commissioner Dunbar.
Return Of Clerks.
sorer Dunbar says:
.Th. return OF the municipal clerks
:, "a the number of names contained
mon n certain petition. always in the
,hsence OF fraud, should stand, and l
rant to reiterato again that there was
M evidence az fraud appearing at the
nearing I'm any way. none whatever as
,, the clerks, the clerks always stating
rhen asked that in certifying to the
os,,tlons. they did IL honestly with no
,,terpt 10 dcfraud, that he honestly
.eleyod that the names on the petit
INNS appeared upon the check lists of
heir several cities and towns. That
b.ing the case they should not amend
mr. attempt 10 amend after the 90day
period has expired, by going over these
editions and making up lists of names
ma, they claim after closer exami-
nation 40 not appear. The clerks
ertifcate should be binding in the alb
..nce or fraud upon all parties in in
crest
NO ono can deny but what the
.erk's certificate is binding in the fol-
pwing illustration: The clerk certifies
mat all tho names from one to 100 ap-
vear upon the voting list, except the
names after certain designated num-
hers and he strikes off 10 or Is. Such
names in the absence of fraud. the
Jerks certificate Is binding upon the
petitioners. and cannot be amended by
any means after the expiration of the
~ DAYS II IL is true in this instance,
Why should IL not be true in the other
otherwise how can anyone who is in
'eresed in securing names under the
referendum be able TO know what num-
her NJ valid names he has when the
petitions are filed. lie has no way of
moving whether the names on the
petitions are electors or not. He has
70 accept the clerks return. II he knew
or could get any evidence to the con-
rary before filing, which | say it
would he impossible to do to know
hat the clerk was making certificate
which was wrong. why Of course he
could 20 out II fortunate enough and
securs additional names.
Petitions Rejected Neglect.
no petition should be rejected and
he petitioner thereon disfranchised be-
His name upon the petition is his vote
and II the intention of the petitioner is
plain his name should count.
This principle OF law was laid down
Ny our court not many years ago in
he case where the voters of whole
oity would he disfranchised because the
municipal officers had failed to post n
notice of an election. Our court said
nat voters could not be disfranchised
nocause 81 the mere neglect of the
municipal officers. and that the same
principle of law ought to govern in this
,ase
Petitions in Question.
Now. let lis come down to some of
The petitions in question. which | think
here is no doubt should be counted.
even II the others which | have re-
ferred 20 were rejected.
Il wish to discuss briefly the two
petitions from Lewiston, one contain
ing 100 names and the other - names.
These two petitions are upon a list
which have filed with the secretary OF
state with the petitions, and they also
appear upon a card index of the petit
Nons IN the secretary OF state once.
They do not appear at the present
line, however. TO bc on file. and / have
not been given credit for them in the
'0clal count I want to say now as ]
stated In the records. l do not accuse
any one Of intentionally misplacing
,hess two petitions. The petitions
nave been handled many times by
many different hands and 1t is not i'm
Wohaole that two should ne mis-
placed ma Il there is any doubt in the
natter that doubt should he given in
aVor of the petitioners Mr.. Shorey,
WIN whom the petitions were filed in
.ne of'ice Of the secretary of State. and
.pr whom ! have the highest regard,
D'u not testify at the hearing in con-
"adicton 10 my statement OF the rec
'fds and do not think that he needed