Year: 1879

OF the courts he would have ascertained that
in matters affecting the rights of 9TH
ers, and especially where great public interests
are to be considered, the word "may." as used


in the statute of 1871, is construed as if it were
written shall" and is binding upon ell par
ties subject to its provisions; and in such case
the Governor and Council, for the mere pur-
poses of serving partisan purposes, are not at
liberty to disregard the statute and to claim
that it is matter resting in their discretion
whether they will or not be governed by the
law of the land. This investigation, had the
Governor chosen to prosecut it, would have
further convinced him that it is recognized
rule in courts OF justice that the delicate and
responsible duty of pronGuncing an act Of the
Legislature unconstitutional and void is only
to be exercised by the Supreme Court sitting
in banc, and that until it is so pronounced void
it is is binding upon the conduct of the highest
and lowest, of the Governor aud the governed,
in the discharge Of every duty and the asser-
ton of every right. Bat the Governor and
Council in order to carry out their purpose OF
defeating the election and Of substituting
their own nefarous political schemes and plots
for the will of the people have taken upon
themselves the responsibility of disregardlng
the statute of 1877 or declaring it void. They
have construed the constitution to suit their
own selfish purposes; and instead OF being
governed by its broad and liberal spirit, have
resorted to legal quibbes to defeat its plain
and evident intent. Their stupendous villainy
has been completed in direct contravention of
the laws OF the land and of the constitution
itself. If their pretext is to obtain, then 1t
will be found almost impossible to administer
the State in accordance with the fundamental
principle upon which it rests, which is that the
government is to be established, administered
and maintained by the consent of the gov
erned; because future Governors and Coun-
ellis will easily find reasons as plausible by
which to set aside the expressed will of the
people and to perpetuate themselves IN power


If Gov. Garcelon and his Council actually
have the confidence which they profess in the
legal correctness of the positions which they
have assumed, why have they SO persistenty
refused to take the opinion of the Supreme
Court upon the subject? They have been
urged to do so; the law confers upon them the
power to demand such an expression of opin-
ion when they see fit; but they persistently de-
MED to parties this right, which would have
enabled them to determine by authority the
rules which ought to govern their action. Has
there ever before been an instance in this State
where the Governor and Council have refused
to avail themselves of this privilge wherever
great and important question of duty was in
yolved? This Gc5ernor and this Council pre-
ferred rather in the secrecy of their own
chamber to consummate the plot against the
rights of the people and then to attempt to
shield themselves by such specious excuses as
those contained in the defense Of Gov. Garce-
lon.


It is fortunately true that in case of the
county officials the courts of law afford REM
edy by writ of quo 1carranto if persons shall
be found to accept these offices to which they
have not been elected; but the crime is none
the less great, and the excuse as given is none
the less fiimsy and unsatisfactory because the
wrong attempted in this instance will not be
found in the end to be without remedy.


Gov Garcelon will never be able to convince
the public that the constitution and laws OF
this State will justify the counting out by
wholesale of Senators and Representatives
fairly elected by the people, where, to say the
least of it, the returns have been as accurate
in form as those showing the election of the
men to whose votes Gov. Garcelon and his
Council are indebted for the offices which they
have dsgraced and the trusts they have be-
trayed.