Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1917-12-13
C0MR. DuNBAR'S ARGUMENT
ON REFERENDUM PETITION
submitted in Writing to Gov. Milliken-Claims
That With Elimination of Admitted Illegal
Names, He Has Over 10000 Valid Signers and
the Referendum on Sea and Shore Fisheries
Should Be Proclaimed

", loF lfled TO represent II fairly and
VIII again briefly state what ne in
formed me at the time
He said that he made up the card
indexes from the list of petitions which
We're filed, but ! answered by saying
that he must be mistaken, for there
were petitions there from three towns
that dld not appear upon my list which
came in by mail. The first time that
knew they were there was when |
made an examination with him. These
petitions appeared upon the card index
and could not have been made from
the list filed. which shows to my mind
that the card index must have been
made from the petitions themselves,
which of course was the only proper
way in which to make such an index
Il again state that a doubt exists
here. No fraud is attached to anyone
by me. | do not think that any ex-
listed. but there is doubt, and that
doubt ought to he given in favor of the
petitioners.
These two petitions being counted
would give a total of names filed on
this bill at 1926, instead OF 1906.
1t is admitted by Brother Crockett that
the Belfast petitions which he asked be
rejected on the ground that David
Walkers name. appeared as a verify
ing petitioner and that the name OF
David Walker did not appear as a
petitioner. The name of ID. f. Walker
did appear and my brother has ad-
mitted in the record that this Belfast
petition of 100 names was proper.
THE petition of William F. Ward of
Waterville containing 81 names in
winch Mr.. Ward appears as the yeri-
Tying petitioner but whose name is not
legible on the petition. should be con-
sidered. There were some erasures on
this petition and as Mr.. Ward stated in
evidence that he is positive he signed,
that he was the person who circulated,
that one of the erasures might posi-
bly, be his signature. again there is q
doubt, and where a doubt exists in the
absence of strong convincing evidence
that doubt ought to be considered in
favor of the petitioners and the other
petitioners not be DISTINGUISHED.
THE petition from Lewiston. the
verifying petitioner being Donat
paradis. containing "a names, in which
the clerk certified to the names from
one to 80, except No. IS, appeared upon
the list and that Mr.. Paradis signed as
No. "a. This petition should be couat-
ed under the ruling of the court as this
was merely clerical error There
was no evidence offered but what Mr..
l'aradis was an elector.
II call attention to the petition from
Lewiston containing 81 names; signed
and verified by Eugene I.eBrun, which
Brother Crockett asked TO have re-
jccted on the ground that MIR. LeBrun
did sign as NO 80 on an earlier petit
ton. | had Mr.. LeBrun called and he
testified at the last hearing positively
that the signature and verifita alton to
the petition containing 81 names was
| written by him and that signature 70
an earlier petition was not. Evidently
his name to the earlier petition was
placed there by some other person at
his request, but there can be no doubt
in the light of his testimony but what
the later petition should count.
Take the petition Of Amede Cen
dron, which my brother asked to be
rejected, for the same reason as in the
LeBrun case, the only difference being
that both petitions in which his name
appeared as petitioner, the one IN
which his name appeared as a petit
TONER and veriiicr was dated June
first. but Mr.. Gendron is very positive
that he circulated only one set of petit
tions and signed and verified to the act
he circulated, and that the signature to
the other petition was not his, although
it resembled it. Can there be any
should count?
ID. II. Elliot testified that he signed
the petition. that he did not sign as a
verifying petitioner and did not take
the oath before Charles +. I-emaire,
the mayor of Lewiston, because on May
31st. which was the date of the verifi-
cation, he was in kennebec Jail.
submit that his testimony is clear that
he signed the petition and ! know
Your EXccllency will be satisfied if you
compare that signature with the veri-
flying signature that they are positive
ly one and the same signature. If you
are not satisfied with this. take eX-
hibits of his signature which he save
YOU dt tie iitd!Iii ana coiiip'iit' ana
think that you will have no doubt but
what they are the same. J do not
think it necessary to proceed any fur
Their in the Elliott petition \ weak
minded man. you could see from his
appearance upon the stand at the very
outset that he was not telling the
truth in this particular Taking the
testimony of Elliott ana that of the
mayor of Lewiston. it would seem to
me that the mayors testimony should
stand in preference TO that of a weak
minded man who has done time for
stealing and beating a woman