Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1917-11-24


rect and cross examination. is made by
q greement a part of the record III TINS
I case, as | understand?
! Dunbar-That is right.
Crockett-And Edmund a. Moison.
Dunbar-Yes.
I Crockett-That doesn't need to be
gone into. Now the next petition is E.
| B. Ivory That has already been testi-
/ fed to. The next is William Burbank,
and that has already been testified to.
Dunbar-Burbank testified in my
/ case?
/ Crockett-Yes. testified yesterday af-
! ternoon. You know | spoke to you. You
remember he testified the last thing
( Now Ernest NJ. Roy. petition Of 81
rames. from Lewiston. verified by Err
rest NJ. Roy. on July ). and Ernest NJ.
/ Roy signed as No. 10 on a petition verb
/ fed by Napoleon Bolduc on July 3.
The next petition is from Lewiston,
contains Il names is verified on July 5
/ by Albert D. Laughter. Albert u. Lang
/ iler signed as No. Il on the petition
verified by A. P. Provost on May 81.
I For that reason the latter petition is
invalid, but for another reason il is in
valiG. and that is the clerks signature
/ q tll- Jcltciil vi inns DStltiOll ~ :
| names is not signed.
Dunbar: There is no question
about that. I will admit that. You
might have saved all that record
/ Crockett: I know that. | didn't
discover it until the other day The
neXt petition is from Lewiston con-
tains 10 names. is verified on June LIST
by Amede Gendron in the usual form.
Amede Gendron signed No. on the
petition verified by Richard ]. Mari on
June 1st.
Dunbar: Which one goes out.
they are both
Crockett: l know they are. Ny
contention is this: A person can sign
tut one petition. That bearing the
earlier date should be counted. That
bearing the later date should not. Now
these bear the same date. The bur
den is upon the petitioners to estab-
lish the fact as TO which one he signed
first
Dunbar: And the petition that Won
are going to reject
Crockett: Either the entire peti-
tons verified by Amede Gendron should
be rejected or the name Amede Gen
dron on the other petition. But nv
contention is that the burden of proof
is upon the petitioner to establish the
fact that he signed the verified one
first or the one certified by him.
Dunbar; You claim the burden is
on US to prove that?
Crockett: That is my claim.
Dunbar: That being the case shall
have to ask the privilege be given me
to summons-what do you claim his
name is?
Crockett: Amede Gendron.
DUNBAR: Summons him to testi
fy which one he did sign first. because
cannot prove it any other way.
Crockett: That is right 1t will have
to be done later. | will tell YOU where
YOU can find him. Now under orr
agreement the next petition is peti-
ton from Auburn. verified by Charles
II. Roberts. containing 80 names
Charles Fl. Roberts has already testi-
fed in the Inland Fish and Game case
and the Lewiston police case. and bv
agreement his testimony in these cases
IS t" be admitted as the testimony in
thiH case. the petitions being the same
DUNBAR: | think we agreed last
night that the testimony as given in
tn police case
Crockett: That don't make any diff
ference anyway.
Dunbar: Anyway, the record will
show
Crockett: Now the next one is r.
ii. Elliott. Mr. Elliott has already tes-
tuned Arthur Graveue. petition from
Auburn, - names
Dunbar: The same admission.
crockett: The same admission an
plies. The same agreement that his tos
tImony given in the police case shall
be used in this. Now that COMPLETES
the list with the exception of the tes
timony of city clerks. etc. Now the
case has arrived at this stage where
It IS understood that the Governor ex-
anines the check lists himself, using
such aids as can be furnished him nv
the various city and town clerks Now
we have list of names from the va
rlous towns and cities which we claim
90 not appear upon the check lists
Those arc being examined NOW from,
Lewiston in the police case These lists
are merely guides and | will suggest
- '-'"'7N No UoCu III lIllS case,
ana Bro. Dunbar be given the fullest
opportunity to examine them himself
or III any proper way
That will save the necessity of GOING
all over this thing verbally again. VIC
snail not make any Roadway by intro
ducin@ a lot of testimony, because the
flnai test is Your EXcellency's eXamin
alton of the checklists to find if those
names do actually appear There arc
no new names which have not been AL
ready testified to-
Mr.. Brown-There is one cuestion
Bro. Crockett, | would like To ask a.
far as | am concerned for my ovr,
guidance, and that is this: So far in
this case there hasn't been ANYTIME
shown as TO what has become OF those
names which it is admitted by the va
rious city and town clerks and bv tbe
parties who have investigated and
who are now investigating and who
may after Investigate. as to the names
that cannot be determined at this stage
as being upon the check lists bv rea
son of erasures, deliberations or of
hlots upon these petitions themselves
as TO whether or not the Governor is
to exclude those names or whether he
will give the petitioners the benefit OF