Democratic Sentinel, Volume 3, Number 48, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 January 1880 — THE CANVASS IN MAINE. [ARTICLE]

THE CANVASS IN MAINE.

The Ground of Action—Report Upon Which Returns Were Rejected. Foliowring is an abstract of the report of the committee on Maine election returns, made in the Council: Your committee, in submitting this report, deem it neceseary to state specifically certain facts connected with returns from many of the towns, cities and plantations which have materially affected the result of canvassing the votes returned. There are many returns which, owing to fatal'defects, cannot be counted; but we shall specify only those which have affected the result Article IV., part L, section sos the constitution regulates the manner of ifctiDg Senators and Representatives to the Legislature, and also the process of transmitting to the Governor and Council the process by which they are to determine who have been elected. This section provides that in case of towns and plantations municipal officers shall, in open town and plantation meeting, at the close of election day, sort, count and declare the votes cast, and form a list of all persons voted for. and after the name of each person thus voted for shall write the number or votes received by him. This list shall be recorded in open meeting by a clerk, and a copy of this recorded list shall be signed by the Selectmen and attested by the Clerk and sealed up in open meeting. This copy of the recorded list thus attested is to be deposited in the office of the Secretary of State within thirty days thereafter. A section of the Revised Statutes requires that, in addition to the foregoing specific and mandatory provisions of the constitution, the return ’ shall state the whole number of ballots cast at the election. The same section of the constitution requires that the Governor and Council shall open and compare the returns thus, transmitted and from them determine who appt&rs to be elected, and the Governor is to issue to such persons as thus appear to bo elected summons to take seats in the Legislature. Oficourse the first requirement is that the returns shall be made and sealed up in open town or plantation meetings. We understand this is required in order thst the electors may be present and s e that the returns are made in accordance with the facts, and we are of opinion that returns not made np in open meeting are not legal returns and cannot he counted; and we have acted upon this belief in makmg our tabulations. Several protests accompanied with affidavits to support them against the counting of returns specified therein have been considered by us. These Erotests allege that said returns shouid not e counted because they were not made up in open town meeting, but were made after the meeting olosed, in some private office or store, when no one hut a portion of the municipal officers were present, and in some cases only the clerk. This condition of things in sevoral cases has beon proved to our entire satisfaction, and we have rejected returns thus defective in our tabulations. In the case of the town of Stoneham an affidavit, signed by two Selectmen, establishes the fact that they signed re-. turns in blank, and tho Town Clerk took them home and filled them up, and the Selectmen have no knowledge of what the returns contain. For the foregoing reasons we have rejected in our tabulations Representative returns from the town? of Jay, Stoneham, Lisbon, Webster and Farmington. Toe return from the town of Searsport has also been rejected, because it was not sealed up in open town meeting. By means of these rejections a few persons will receive seats in tie Legislature who would not have been thus seated bad the roturns from the aforesaid towns been made up as the constitution requires. These are: James O. White, of the Jay district; Louis Voter, of the Farmington district; N Tired bury, of the Stoneham district ; Joshua E. Gordon, of the Searsport district, and Leonard H. Reale, of the Derham district The Supreme Court has held that municipal officers shall sign return? with their own hands or make their marks; otherwise the retains cannot be counted. We have found several returns fatally defective in this particnlar, and have accordingly rejected them. By this rule, laid down by the court, the New Sharon returns have been by us rejected. This rejection offsets the election of one Representative. We found several returns fatally defective because they were not attested by the Town Clerk. The Supreme Court held that such are not returns, and we have rejected them. They are quite numerous, but we shaU specify only such as affect the result of the eleotion. The Representative return from the town of Lebanon is one of them. Its rejection affects the election of one Representative, viz, Stephen V. Lord. Vanceboro and Albany are like case*, and the rejection of returns from these towns affects the election of two Representatives.

Representative districts, in most cases, are composed of several towns. In some of the towns the full Christian names of candidates seem to have been used, in others only initials, and wo hesitated as to whether we could count initial names with full names. On examination of the law we find the Supreme Court Sil. 64, p. 56] has held that the Governor and ncil must count them as distinct and separate persons. By adopting this rule laid down by the court elections of five Representatives seem to be affected, viz.: F. W. Hill, of Exeter; Alex. Woodcook, of Dauforth district; J. H. Hart, of Newcastle; John Brown, of Hagden district, and John W. Brighton, of district The Revised Statutes require that in the case of plantations, in addition to the forms required by towns, a list of voters of plantations be sent into the Secretary of State; otherwise, that returns from such plantations shall not be counted. We found returns from seven of tli6 plantations irregular in this particular, and we have specified them on our tabu ation. It will there appear that rejection of those returns affect the return of two Representatives. The State requirements of sotting forth in returns the whole number of votes in many cases was Dot complied with. We find it has been the practice of llie Governor and Council for many years to reject such returns, and we have not deemed it safe to deviate from this long-established interpretation of the law, so fully recognized by our predecessors; and in making our tabulations have omitted all such returns. It will be perceived these rejections affect the election of several Representatives in the county of Washington. One candidate for the Senate seems to have been voted for in some of the towns of his connty by the name of John T. Wallace. Jr., and in others by the name of John T. Wallace, but we have tabulated the votes as thrown for two different meD, as we have no legal knowledge that the same person is meant. Two sets of returns were sent on to the Secretary of State from the town of Fairfield, each of which oontradicta the oilier, and it was impossible, from the contradictory character of the returns, to determine the result of the election in that town. We have, therefore, rejected the returns from that town in our tabulations. The rejection affects the election of one Representative.

Accompanying and attached to the Representative returns from the town of Skowhegan, there was a statement signed by the Selectmen, that a certain number of ballots were protested as illigal, under section 29, chapter iv., of the Revised Statutes. One of the ballots objected to was attached to the returns. The Selectmen in their certificate alleged how many of the ballots were thrown, and in this certificate they informed the Governor and Council that they make the return subject to the legality or illegality of that kind of ballot The ballot was in the form of an ordinary sheet of paper folded to make two leaves. On one of the pages half the candidates’ names were printed, and on the next page the remainder of the names of candidates appear. We are fully satisfied that that kind or ballot is clearly in violation of the letter aud spirit of the foregoingnamed statute, and we have accordingly rejected a number of ballots in making our tabulations. A protest was filed against counting returns from the town of Cherryfield, on the ground that the officers who attested the returns were not legal officers. Affidavits presented with the protest establish the fact that not one of the legal Selectmen presided at making out returns and receiving votes. One of the Selectmen was a foreigner, and could not legally hold the office of Selectman. The Superior Court has held that a Board of Town Officers consisting of less than three is not a legal board. Acting upon this opinion we have rejected returns from the town of Cherryfield. This affects the election of one Representative. Several protests and affidavits to support them were referred to us, asking the rejection of returns on account of bribery and intimidating voters, and on account of legal defects in calling the town meeting, also on account of an improper check list The copy of the record presented to us from the town of Skowhegan shows that for the election in that town only one copy of the warrant was posted, and the reoord does not show that one was posted in the town. Objoction to counting the vote of the city of Auburn was made because voters’ names were added to the check-lists in three of the wards,

in violation of the law, while voting was going on, on eleotion day. Affidavits filed fully establish that fact Other affidavits plainly show the same condition of things in other cities. We consider these facts as not legally cognizable by the Governor and Council as a canvassing board, and we have disregarded them in our tabulation. We recommend reference of all such papers to the Legislature. The returns from Portland are defective because they do not oomply with the constitutional requirement, which provides that the names of all persons receiving votes shall be stated in the returns. A large number of votes were returned from said city as “scattering,” and there was no possible means afforded by the returns to determine for whom such votes were thrown.. The returns from the cities of Saco, Lewiston, Bath, and Rockland are fatally defective, because they were not signed by a majority of the aldermen. Under the statute) and by decisions of the court such returns cannot be counted, and we have been obliged to reject them. It will devolve on the House of Representatives to determine in the first instance aud finally who has been elected to the House from these cities, as we have no legal evidence before us to determine that question.