Year: 1867




to be presumed to have taken the freeman's
oath and ought to be entitled to vote. In
1856 this House made the decision that a
member could not be unseated by reason of
having been voted for by a man who had not
taken the freenan's oath, and in 1858 diff
ferent decision was made He thought the
first decision the nearer correct. As to Mr..
O'Neil, it appears he was foreign born, and
had not been naturalized. He thought that
was not sufficient his ia ther might have come
into the State before he had arrived at the
age of eighteen years, and become natural
lied and thereby carry the naturalization of
the son with him. He hoped the resolutions
would not be passed. Mr.. Proctor stated for
the committee, that TO the two who had
not taken the freemanss 9 oath. one came from
Massachusetts, and one from New York, but
that they had not taken the freeman's oath,
although they had voted previously at cleo
tions.


Mr.. Ross of ST. Johnsbury did not wish to
unseat the sitting member If by doing SO we
should be setting a bad precedent. He diff
fered with Mr.. Ferrin in his construction of
the right of a man to vote, but thought the
freeman Z oath must be taken. He thought
that the letter of the law as TO giving notice
of the contesting of the election. where it
saws a. duly notified means legal notice.
and that must be given as other legal papers
are to be- given. The fact also that the
friends of the sitting member appeared for
him. ought TO have the same effect as though
he appeared himself He could not see how
we could reverse the decision of the commit
tee without setting bad precedent.


Mr.. Miner of Manchester said il was clear
enough that every man 70 vote must have
first ta ken the freeman's oath. But he did
not think that the notice given in this case
was sufficient within the meaning of the law.
He thought that if we allowed this method
of notice, it would be subject to abuse, even
where the member returned by an over
whelmiEg majority, giving the man in the
minority an opportunity, in the absence of
the elected member, to secretly place a notice
on his premises, and go on and take ex parte
dispositions and come up To unseat the elect
ed member when he had known nothing
about the fact that his seat was contested.
He thought the notice was not sufficient in
this case. and that he had not had fair
hearing - in court" and that we should not
be justified in unseating him.


Mr. Huhb ard of Stock bridge, said he could
not agree with the gentleman from MOntpe-
lier as TO his ideas about frecman's s oath. He
thought that the notice given was sufficient
and that ought 20 sustain the report of
the committee.


Mr. Converse of Woodstock opposed the
RESOLUTIONS, ana thought IL Tor tDe interest
of the House that the sitting member be re-
tained, as he :. had got the hang of the
school house. The contest is between the
town of Barre and the sitting member. If
the sitting member is to be unseated. il is
because two men have improperly voted
when these two men have voted year after
year without ever being challenged. and the
members from Barre have held their seats
wear after wear without contest. Now there
is local controversy between the voters in
Barre, and they pick up these men to make
a case against the returned member. Barre
ought not now to be allowed 10 bring this
case here. when for years they have cncour-
aged the verv state of things that thew now
drag in here TO make a case of.


Mr. Hubbard Of Stockbridge said his SYM
pathies We're with the sitting member. but he
thought the facts showed he was not legally
elected and was not entitled to his scat. As
70 the matter of notice. he thought the officer
had done all he could do To give notice. and
he should be compelled u vote against the
sitting member.


! Mr.. Ferrin said that neither the gentleman
+ from Stockbridge, nor any other member of
this House knows which of the men claiming
/ a seat was elected. We do know that the
proper officer has certified To the Secretary If
State that the sitting member was elected
/ and that ought to be conclusive unless clear
/ " shown to the contrary. Now as 10 the
notice. he read from the statutes the section
which provides that the person declared
elected :. shall be duly notified in writing :
This might have been done by letter directed
10 him, and would have been sufficient But
the notice was slipped under his kitchen
door. In his absence, and the fault is in the
law that it is not sufficient, and not in the
sitting member. Mr.. Stafford had no oppor
tunity of showing how many Illegal votes
were cast for Mr.. Reed from the very fact
of the insufhciency of the notice.


Mr.. Ross of ST. Johnsbury said that it is
fairly 10 be presumed that the elected mem
Der is resident of the town, and that il is
his duty TO he round and see u the matter
Further, it is held by the courts that if an
attorn'y appears in any case, the party for
whom he appears Is bound by the result and
that is conclusive Ia the matter of notice.
and that this case ought to be considered in
the light OF all the precedents.


Mr.. Andrews of Berlin said that the whole
matter was in a nut shell. 1t is the question
of legal or illegal. The member is either
elected OF he is not elected. The matter OF
notice he thought had nothing To do with the
ease. The election was legal or Illegal. and
he thought the case cited by Mr.. Ferrin had
nothing to do with this case But under all
the circumstances, and acting without any
/ Jartialitv or fear favor in the matter. we
can do no other way than Ia give the contest
ing member the seat.


Mr.. Mead of Randolph said he understood
the facts 10 lie that Nr. Reed had expressed
himself perfectly satisfied with the result.
and that nc should not contest the election.
Objection being made to the statement OF
hearsay evidence. Mr. Mead said that he
thought the matter of notice was not sufi-
cient, and that we ought 10 give Mr.. Stafford
his seat.


Mr.. Proctor said nothing appeared before
the committee to substantiate the statements
made hy Mr.. Mead. 1t further appeared
that the notice was the best possible one tina,
could be given under the circumstances, and
all the notice that could be given. He
thought the precedents that had been cited
were not applicable to this case.


Mr.. Howe of Castleton moved the previous
question, which was seconded by the House.
On the adoption of the resolution Mr. Han
cock of Worcester demanded the yeas and
nays. and they were as follows: yeas %
nays 90.


SO the resolutions were not adopted.


AFTERNOON.


SESATE.-BiNs Possed.-Houee bill 1856
relating to school districts No Q and 10 in
Rockingham, vote passing the same reconsid
ored, amended Senate bill 80. granting
certain powers to the Connecticut and Pas
sumpsic river railroad company, 70, incorpo-
IA ting the North Rutland marble company.


Reports.--From committee on manufac-
lures. against Senate bill "A, to incorporate
the Peoples gas light company of Buriing
ton third reading refused. From the gen
eral committee, House bill l04, changing the
name of the town of Goshen Gore 10 Lamoille
amended by substituting Stannard for La
moille; passed. From committee on finance