Year: 1879

or professed reasons. which governed the
action of the State Canvassing Board in re-
| jecting such a multitude of ofreturns. We have
the formal. report of the committee OF the
Council to which the returns were referred
for examination. It is fair that these state
ments receive such attention as may be due
to the official sources from which they
come. To be sure they are ex
parte; but until their specific allega-
tions of facts are contradicted in some
authentic manner. or by some responsible
persons, We are not at liberty TO impugn
their credibility. Facts must be respected
no matter which party they may help or
harm. Unless the detailed official state
| ments, now first promulgated, can Dc
| successfully controverted the Governor
and Council have very plausible


not to say very strong. case. Or
course allowance must be made for the


fact that these statements, though official,


are ex parte; but, being official, they are
entitled to credit until they are met and
confuted by specific evidence We ae-
cept them Professionally while await
ing authentic contradiction. If they
shall be disproved by evidence they
will recoil upon their authors. con-
victing them of wilful Justification
of facts in addition to the great crime Of
wilfully falsifying the election returns OF
the State. But surely we are not to assume
that these official averments are false in ad-
vance of credible evidence to prove them
so. AS yet they are uncontradicted. AS yet
they seem to bear on their face the impress
OF truth. Assuming that they are true the
case against the Governor has been greatly
overstated.


The report of the committee of the Ooun-
Gil sets forth the reasons for the rejection
of returns in every instance in which such
rejection affected the result. Each case
must be judged on its separate reasons.
1t would be absurd to lump them oil into
one mass and denounce them by wholesale
because they happen to affect the election
of so many members of the Legislature.
If case is defensib1e, and case B
is defensible, and case is defensible, and
so on to the end of the alphabet. the sum-
nation OF the whole is defensible. If thirty
per cent, or sixty per cent, or ninety per
cent of the decisions are justifable, the
action of the Governor and Council is JUS
tilted to that extent. It is not matter that
can be judged en- bloc without examination
of the separate instances.


The Governor aud Council claim that
their decisions on every local return were in
strict pursuance of mandatory provisions
of law. They plead uniform precedents set
by their predecessors; they plead judicial
decisions by the highest State tribunals;
they plead the plain language of the con-
stitution and statutes in defence of their
decisions. Have they misrepresented the
precedents? Have thay misstated the
adjudications of the courtsp Have they
made false or garbled quotations from the
statutes? If they have it can be shown.
and they will be covered with disgrace.
But until 1t is shown the public outside Of
the State will suspend ita judgment If
the Governor and Council have done
nothing but what the law required them to
do then the law alone is responsible for
the unexpected results.


| The idea has been industriously dissent
mated by the republicans that the numerous
decisions of the Governor and Council by
which returns were rejected fixes the COM
plexion Of the new Legislature. We fail to
perceive that this is true. It is not true


unless the Legislature, which has
power to go behind the returns
and investigate the facts in their
first sources, shall violate its duty. 1t is as
sumed by the republicans that it will vio-


late its duty, since there will be at the out


set fusion majority. But does this neces-
sarily follow? Because a democratic re-


turning board which had no legal authority
| to 90 behind the actual returns declined to


do SO is it to be assumed that a provisional


democratic majority Of q Legislature which


has power to 60 behind the returns and de-


eide cases on their merits will refuse to dis


charge their duty? Had the Governor and


Council possessed the same legal authority


to make investigations which belongs to


the Legislature it is unlikely that Port


land and other cities would have been


deprived of their representation; but,


their authority being restricted by law to q


mere examination and certifcation Of the


returns, they were unable to practise the


equities which are within the power Of the


Legislature. 1t was the duty of the Gov


ernor and Council to certify to what they


actually found in the returns, counting


such as the law allowed them to count and


refusing to count those which the law does


not permit to be counted. Their excuse


for not going into the equities and re-


specting the intention Of the voters Is


want of power. The majority of the


Legislature will have no such excuse to


plead. 1t will be their duty to see that


justice is done, as it would have been Gov


ernor Garcelon's clear duty had the law


permitted him and his associates to look