Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1919-02-13

cations OF our own members that We
can disregard that experience which
makes men preeminent in the walks ,:
life in which they have chosen to lead
their lives. We must be bound, no-
perhaps absolutely. but our minds can
not help being guided by the gre1!
judges Of this State and the great
judges of the United States. If We
were NOT so bound. by what prece-
dents would we work at all? They say
perhaps that we are not guled by any
rules OF law-wc arc the sold judges.
Well. SO is the Governor OF our state
in similar position. but in the 10th
Maine Vol will find 81 pages of ques-
tons and answers that the Governor oi
the State of Maine submitted to the ST.
preme court OF the State and the su-
prene court answered them. In the
llith Maine there are Is more pages.
where the Governor asked the supreme
court Of this state to give their opin-
ion;. In the 10Th Main there are -
IageS of questions and answers that
the supreme court of this State made
to this very Senate. And. gentlemen Of
inns senate. do sou say that We arc
going TO disregard the justices of the
supreme court Of TIC State, when in all
the books from 1884 Gown to the present
time YOU will find presidents bv which
the Senate and the Governor and Coun-
ell and other legislative branches OF
TINS government nave asked the opinion
OF those men Of experience and they
have given to them their opinions upo
certain questions when they have pre-
scented to them: And no man ought to
come into this Senate and say we should
disregard the WISDOM of the ages and
the experience of judges when we Judge
of the qualifications Of our own mem
bers.
desire to say that at this period of
the case JuCge Morrill, said: We must
therefore proceed to examine alleged
fraud in Ward 4. Auburn / do no:
think that l disagree at all with m.
brother from Penobscot, Senator
Ihombs. is the facts in the case that
were present to the committee That
IS. my understanding probably is the
same as his in regard to the facts that
were produced in evidence before this
committee.
1t seems that there were three
men, O'Connor, Flaherty and Small.
who were particularly in charge of
this election in Ward 4. Auburn,
and Wien they got all done that
day with their manipulations of the
ballots and the ballot boxes, coming
to the city clerk and handing ih.:.l
lhere to different people and Soin:;
out to get ice-cream and one thing
and another. it was found there
We're GO ballots in that ought not to
have been in the box. believe we
may as we'll say that that is about
as true n statement of the facts
without any particular elaboration
Of them as can be made. and Judge
Morrill, finds the same things to be
true. And Judge Morrill, says "the
ward clerk and some of the election
clerks fell short of the full measu
of their duty to their fellow citizens
by hardness at the opening of .',c
polls and by absence during the day !
The city clerks Office should have
been open at the adjournment of The
ward meeting to receive the ballots
and the ballot boxes: and that Off
cial should not have permitted tn,
check lists to go into the hands If
interested parties for the purpose Ct
making copies" l think that refers
to candidates for several af the Off
ceS who took copies Of the ward lists |
Willie they We're in the hands of the |
city clerk.
by proof Of these fraudulent ats |
no rpc0r1 and at n;
ton in Ward in the City of Auburn |
have been impeached. Their value |
as legal evidence of the result in that |
ward has been destroyed: their pro-
bative force is gone And he sites
Attorney General VS.. Newell, S.
Maine. o113.2276: People eN rel. judi
son vs.. Thatcher. So N. Y. 525: IA
Anle:. Rep. :12; McCrary on Elec-
tons. 4th ed. sec. $50, GO. THE cases
cited on brief of petitioners coun-
sci amply sustain this conclusion"
Now it shows by that very para
graph in Judge Morrills opinion that
he las considered cases that are quo
wGrranto cases. Attorney General
vs. Newell is q quo warranto case.
And People OK rel. is the way they
bring it in New York, meaning Peo-
pie e2 relator VS.. Judson. that is a
quo Warranto case. Now Judge
Morrill, has considered thon and l
want to say for the benefit Of the
Senate that Justice Morrill, is a man
vino has three times revised the laws
Of the State of Maine. FIe has been
judge Of probate in Androscoggin
County for Il great many years, and
I understand, but / am not sure that
this is so, that he postponed the
holding Of a term of court week so
that lie could give his' undivided
study to this particular matter.
Now I am not sure that this is ex-
actly SO, but know some part of the
time he ought to have been holding
a term of court he was concerned in
the decision of this particular case
And after considering tins quo war;
ranto cases which he has just men,
toned, this is what he says: Blu:
the case shows that there were 395
voters in that ward who legally cast
their votes at that election; at least
there is no evidence to show other
wise: only one name of the $50
on the incoming check lists
has been shown to have been fraud
,i'entiy checked. and that through
ton Of the voter by an
other. We do not know what ballots
these legal voters cast. or for whom