Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-04-12
Statement of Farris
(Con&inued from PAGE Onel

dence presented at the hearing.
That statement is true so far as it
goes, but it seems to me that he
meant to infer that counsel for
Sheriff Cummings had recognized
mis- legal right to vote. On Monday.
March 22nd, Judge Connolly and
myself had a conference with Gov
ernor Brewster in his private Office
at the State House, at which time
we asked for, specifications of the
charges that would be put in evil
dence by the complainant against
the sheriff, and during this confer
ence we talked about the procedure
and the rules of evidence. The gov
ernor informed us that he would
rule on the evidence with the advice
and consent of his council and that
the council would be advised by the
attorney general, who would sit at
the hearing in an advisory capacity.
Judge Connolly and myself both
agreed that this was satisfactory to
u.s. as we understood that Judge
John A. Peters of the United States
district court wrote a letter to the
governor and council after the re-
moval proceedings of Sheriff Wes-
colt, criticizing that body for having
the attorney general act as prose-
cutor and at the same time advising
the governor and council in the
premises at that hearing.
Before the date of the hearing
Judge Connolly and ! talked over
the right of the governor to vote
and also the fact that the council
which was to hear the charges
against the sheriff was not a con-
stitutional council. one councillor
having died in office, leaving only
six to advise the governor. Had
there been a constitutional council
! it would have been impossible for
tie vote on the removal question.
Governor Brewster cites two prece-
dents for his action in voting and
breaking the tie, and in both cases
to my mind they afford no prece-
dent. In the Sheriff White case of
Penobscot in 1918 the council was
unanimous for the removal of Sher-
if White. Governor Milliken cast
his vote but it had no lega! effect.
In the Sheriff Wescott case OF Han
cock county in 1924 only one coun-
cillor voted for removal. and Gov
ernor Baxter asked for his name to
be called and he voted with the one
councillor, and in this case the vote
on the result.
There is absolutely no case or
precedent of a council casting a tie
vote in such a proceeding and the
governor casting the deciding vote
because in the two cases cited as
precedents by Governor Brewster
there was a constitutional council
consisting of seven members and it
can be readily seen that the situation
which arose in the Cummings hear
ing would have been impossible
with seven members of TIE council
voting on the charges of removal
With the constitutional council it
would be unnecessary for the gov
ernor to vote and should he vote it
would have no legal effect.
Take for instance the case of a
council voting 4 to 3 for removal.
would it be reasonable or equitable
for the governor to vote with the
three for not sustaining the charges
and thus tie the vote? Granting
that the governor has a right to rule
on the evidence and take his law
from the attorney general. it would
seem to me to be as reasonable for
the presiding justice in a court of
law to vote with the jury If our jury
system had seen fit to adopt the
| ma jority rule, and in case before
a jury where they stood to 6 the
presiding justice could break the tie
and cast his vote for the side that
appealed to his sense Of justice.
"a constitutional council voted
either way 4 to 3 the vote of the Gov
ernor would only tie the vote, and the