584 



MAINE. 



open meeting are illegal and can not be counted, and 

 we have acted upon this belief in making our tabula- 

 tions. Several protests, accompanied with affidavits 

 to support them, against counting the returns speci- 

 fied therein, have been considered by us. These pro- 

 tests allege that the said returns should not be count- 

 ed, because they were not made up in open town 

 meeting, but after the meeting was closed, in some 

 private office or store, when no one but a portion of 

 the municipal officers were present, and in some cases 

 only the clerk. This condition of things in several 

 cases has been proved to our entire satisfaction, and 

 we rejected the returns thus defective in our tabula- 

 tions. In the case of the town of Stoneham, an affi- 

 davit was signed by two selectmen, who established 

 the fact that they signed the returns in blank, and the 

 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 rejected, in 

 our tabulation, the representative returns "from the 

 towns of Jay, Stoneham, Lisbon, Webster, and Farm- 

 ington. The returns from the town of Seaport have 

 also been rejected because they were not sealed up in 

 open town meeting. By means of these rejections, 

 five persons will receive seats in the Legislature who 

 would not have been seated had the returns from the 

 aforesaid towns been made up as the Constitution re- 

 quires. They are James White, of Jay district; 

 Louis Voter, of Farmington district ; N. Bradbury, 

 of Stoneham district ; Joshua Jourdan, of Searsport 

 district; Leonard Beal, of Durham district. The Su- 

 preme Court have held that municipal officers shall 

 sign the returns with their own hands, or make their 

 mark, otherwise the returns can not be counted. We 

 found several returns fatally defective in this particu- 

 lar, and accordingly rejected them by this rule laid 

 down by the Court. New Sharon has also been re- 

 jected by us. This rejection upsets the election of 

 one representative. We found several returns fatally 

 defective because the seal is attested by the town 

 clerk. The Supreme Court held that such returns 

 are not legal, and we rejected them. They are quite 

 numerous, but we shall specify only such as affect the 

 result of the election. The representative returned 

 from the town of Lebanon is one of them. Its rejection 

 affects the election of one representative, viz., Stephen 

 Lord. Vanceboro and Albany are like cases, and the 

 rejection of the returns from these towns affects the 

 election of two representatives. The representative 

 districts in most cases are composed of several towns. 

 In some towns the full Christian names of candidates 

 seem to have been used, and in others only the ini- 

 tials, and we hesitated as to whether we could count 

 the initial names with the full names. On examina- 

 tion of the law we find the Supreme Court held that 

 the Governor and Council must count them as dis- 

 tinct and separate persons. By adopting this rule 

 laid down by the Court, the election of five repre- 

 sentatives seemed to be affected, viz. : F. W. Hill, 

 of Exeter ; Aaron Woodcock, of Danforth district ; 

 James Clark, of Newcastle ; John Brown, of Hodg- 

 don district ; and James Leighton, of Blank district. 

 The Revised Statutes require in the case of planta- 

 tions, in addition to the forms required by the towns, 

 that the list of voters of plantations be sent to the 

 Secretary of State, otherwise the returns from such 

 plantations shall not be counted. We found the re- 

 turns from several plantations irregular in this par- 

 ticular, and we specified them in our tabulations. It 

 will then appear the rejection of those returns affects 

 the election of two representatives. The statute re- 

 quirement of setting forth in the returns the whole 

 number of ballots in many cases was not complied 

 with. We found it had been the practice of the Gov- 

 ernor and Council for many years to reject such re- 

 turns, 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 that this rejection affects several representa- 

 tives in the county of Washington. One candidate 



for the Senate seems to have been voted for in some 

 towns by the name of John F. Wallace. Jr., and in 

 others by the name of Jno. T. Wallace ; but we tabu- 

 lated the votes as thrown for two different men, as 

 we have no legal knowledge that the same person is 

 meant. Two sets of returns were sent in to the Sec- 

 retary of State from the town of Fairfield, each of 

 which contradicts the other ; and as it was impossible 

 from the conflicting character of the returns to deter- 

 mine the result of the election, we rejected the returns 

 from that town in our tabulations. The rejection 

 affects the election of one representative. Accom- 

 panying and attached to the representative return 

 from the town of Skowhegan there was a statement 

 signed by the selectmen that a certain number of bal- 

 lots were protested as being illegal, under section 29, 

 chapter 4, Revised Statutes. One of the ballots ob- 

 jected to was attached to the returns. The selectmen 

 allege how many such ballots were thrown, and in 

 this certificate they inform 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 of the candi- 

 dates' names are printed, and on the next page the 

 balance of the names of candidates appear. We are 

 fully satisfied that this kind of ballot is clearly in vio- 

 lation of the letter and spirit of the foregoing-named 

 statute, and we accordingly rejected a number of bal- 

 lots in making our tabulations. A protest was filed 

 against counting the returns from the town of Cherry- 

 field, on the ground that the officers who attested the 

 returns were not legal officers. Affidavits were pre- 

 sented with the protest to establish the fact that not 

 one of the legal selectmen presided at the making out 

 of the returns and the receiving of the votes. One 

 selectman was a foreigner, and could not legally hold 

 office. The Superior Court have held that a board of 

 town officers consisting of less than three is not a 

 legal board. Acting upon this opinion, we rejected 

 the returns from Cherryfield. This affects the elec- 

 tion of one representative. Several protests and affi- 

 davits to support them were referred to us, asking the 

 rejection on account of bribery and intimidation of 

 voters, and on account of legal defects in calling the 

 town meeting, also on account of improper check- 

 lists. 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 record does not show that one was posted in 

 the town. Objection to the counting of the votes 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 elec- 

 tion day. The affidavits filed fully establish the fact, 

 and other affidavits show a similar condition of things 

 in other cities. We consider these facts as not legally 

 cognizable by the Governor and Council as a canvass- 

 ing board, and we disregarded them in our tabula- 

 tions. We recommend the reference of all such papers 

 to the Legislature. The returns from Portland are 

 defective because they do not comply with the consti- 

 tutional 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 Rpckland are fatally de- 

 fective, because they were not signed by a majority of 

 the aldermen. Under the statutes and by decisions of 

 the courts, such returns can not be counted, and we 

 have been obliged to reject them. It will devolve on 

 the House of Representatives to determine in the first 

 instance, and finally, who have been elected to the 

 House from these cities, as we have no legal evidence 

 before us to determine that question. 



A correspondence ensued between ex-Gov- 

 ernor Morrill and Governor Garcelon, in which 

 the former proposed that the disputed points 



