Year: 1879

grant writ of mandamus against the Sec
retary of State to compel him to exhibit the
election returns is published in full in
another column. The time has gone by
when decision of the Court ON this matter
could have any practical effect. The force
of public opinion had already compelled
reluctant Executive to exhibit the returns
and mandamus, had it been issued, could
accomplish nothing more.


The proceedings, however, have by no
means been void of good results. The
opinion of the Court settles some very inn
portant questions and settles them in way
that confirms the views of the Republicans
regarding the character of the election re-
turns and the duties of the Secretary OF
State. From the beginning of the contro-
versy the Republicans have contended that
these returns were in the nature of public
records and that under the Constitution
and the laws candidates, at least, had the
right to inspect them. The view Of the
Council, as far as it can be gathered from
its acts and its evasive declarations, has
been that these returns belonged to it, that
they were made up simply for its informa-
ton and that the inspection of them by
anybody outside its own members was sim
ply favor which it might rightfully grant
or rightfully Withhold. The statute OF 1877
did not change the aspect of the matter,
the Council said, because it was inviolation,
of the Constitution. The opinion of the
Court, it will be seen, thoroughly explodes
the Councils view, for it distinctly affirms
the right.of candidates toinspect the returns,
under the Constitution. AS far as the right
of inspection is concerned it makes not a
particle of difference whether the statute OF
1877 is constitutional or not. In either
case the candidate has the legal right to
inspect the returns. Thus the Council is
driven from one Of its positions.


Another position of the Council was that
the Secretary of State was only its servant,
that his acts were involuntary acts and that
(applying this principle to the case of the
returns) he had no independent custody of
the returns but simply executed the orders
of the Council in regard to them. In
negative way the Council claimed that it
alone was the legal custodian of the returns.
The opinion of the Court says substantially
that the Councils view is not the correct
one and afirms in the plainest Of language
what the Republicans have claimed viz:
that the Secretary of State is the legal
custodian of the returns.


The Court affirms the right, which no
BODY has ever denied, of the Council to have
sufficient possession of the returns to enable
it to perform it's constitutional duty with re-
gard to them.


1t is only when it reaches the question OF
the enforcement of right that the Court
differs at all from the opinion of the Repub-
lican petitioners. The Court says, in effect,
you have the right to see those returns as
you have claimed; the Secretary of State is
the legal custodian of them, as you have
itself of them in order to perform its consti
tutional duty, as you have admitted. On all
these points we agree with you. But we do
not agree with you that we have any power
to enforce your rights while the returns are
in the hands of the Council. We are not
empowered to take the returns
from the Council and give them to
YOU. The opportunity for you to
obtain your legal rights must depend upon
the honor and integrity Of the Council. Ii
that body sees fit to keep the returns from
you on the plea that the possession of them
by it is necessary for the performance OF
constitutional duty, no matter how false the
plea may be, we cannot help you. The
trainers of the Constitution felt SO much
confidence that the Executive branch of the
government would always be composed of
men of honor and integrity that they decid-
ed that it would not be necessary TO set the
Court to watch over it and decide whether
it was acting fairly or not, and so no power
was given us to inspect its official acts. Ii
it abuses the confidence reposed in it you
must look elsewhere for your remedy.


It was not the province of the Court to
suggest remedy, nor, had it been, would it
have been necessary. The people are intel
igent enough to know where it is to be
found and we venture to predict that aIter
next September no Governor and Council OF
the State of Maine will ever attempt to
abridge in the smallest degree the rights OF
any citizen of the Commonwealth-not at
least while the lesson which will then be
taught is remembered.


About the manner of the opinion but a
word need be said. The most suspicious
scrutiny must fail to detect in it phrase or
word that smacks of partizanship In the
smallest degree. Its calm, judicial utter
ances as well as its conclusion must put to
shame those papers, among them the Port
land Argus, which have insinuated without
the shadow of excuse, than Judge Virgin
would take occasion ''to yentilate his strong
partisan prejudices.''


COUNTY ATTORNEY Rounds has not stateo