Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-11-27
SEC. BALLS WORD
Continued from Paqe Om)

request of the respondent mad
November 22nd, 1926. the COMPLAIN.
ant was ordered to file on or before
| 3 o'clock in the afternoon Of Nov.
ember oath. 1926, specifications FUN
! setting forth the irregularities Ell
pected to be proved. After due 10.
tice had been given to both con-.
plainant and respondent Of the time
and place of said hearing, hearing
was held in the hall Of the Houss
of Representatives with all parties
| present in person or by attorney
and after hearing all the eyidena
presented and having carefully con.
sidered the same, /, Frank ". Ball
secretary Of State, for said State b.
Maine, do find as follows:
The statutes relating to corup.
practices in elections being penal IN /
their nature have always, and b i
every jurisdiction, been strictly con
strued and the proof must be full
clear and convincing" The vital
question is the proof OF deliberate.
~ planned and carefully executed
fraud on the part of the respondent
Arthur r. Gould, and the proof
must be clear and decisive. 1T Isl
not proof of violation of the stat.l
ute where the evidence is loose
equivocal or contradictory or In Isl
texture is open to opposing presunP'|
tons"
The proof introduced here falsl
far short of the standard as hl
down by the authorities. The com
plainant introduced evidence Of an
admission by Arthur r. Gould nI
! the effect that Arthur F. Goua
| learned that friends were placing
or about to place, advertisements u
some or all of the newspapers O
Maine in behalf of his candlaaq
for the Office of United States SEM
tor. that friends had stated 10 mn
| that II he would allow his name
. be used as a candidate he eoulo y
home and do nothing, tnat ~
friends did far more than I'll
thought desirable or necessary w
that if friends exceeded the autnoI'
| ity of the statute they must 'SA'
the consequences. There was
proof of any illegal act and the guy
| claim made at the hearing was INA
! Mr.. Gould exceeded the fifteen nun
| dred dollar limit through paid heNs
paper articles and advertising -:
This is not an investigator. ~
| burden is upon the complainant VI
| produce the evidence when plo'~l
to the satisfaction of the secrs'a'
Of State that Arthur r. Goulo "a
ceeded in his expenditures MACS
liabilities incurred the amount ~,
| mitted by statute, or that nc -
knowledge that sums IN excess Mil
being expended TO which eAp's~ ~.
lures or liabilities he consenteo' -
claim of complainant's suu.Sh
made In argument that tnei. "A
common talk about the state ,',.
proof. AS secretary of State -.
not infer knowledge and cGns IN.
| from the meager facts proven :, nj
the respondent did not TESTIFY % AN.
/ evidence against him In sucn j. n Il.
ceedings to prove the chars mt
complaint. The complainant ,hst1
satisfy" the secretary OF ota ... sni|
the allegations In the complain nd
in the specifications are true nm
this he has not done. In ias' va
! complainant, Arthur F: Leis ~. r..
! the only witness called py wv. sn bs|
spondent and he admitted .n nlsaa|
did not know of his own KhoNa,N N
that any of the allegations me. Inc"
him in his complaint were 'ru' nd
The matters contained III nrovsi|
| complaint filed haze not pee" oraersil
| to my satisfaction and IL ,.ssd.
that said complaint be disIiil1IT
'''' ~ FRANK W. BALL
Secretary of Stats