{"newspaper_name": "Portland gazette and Maine advertiser.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 4133, "word_count": 739, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9696000218391418], "ccnet_perplexity": [1942.5999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
| Parssn5feid, in the county Of York,
| being i4s for James Sullivan, are
received and allowed TO him, though


The return contains upon its face the


following certificate, viz. By ys0-


fsn of ,fbe 7oaVn Clerk being Eck, tie


votef zVe,s MT sealed Ep IN f0rVn meet


ing" AS this defect is repugnant


to the exprefs letter of the eonftitu-


tion, it is fuggefed by the report,


that The faid certificate APPEAR 70 be Az
| Interpolation. But no evidence was
offered to fupport fuch a fuggefiOn.
+! On the contrary enc g tie Sele7msn
qUbe EgneI the return, and rUbs is q
ngrrr5cr Of The Honjf Of Reprelfntotive5,
was offered to repel it and prove that
the fact certified was trucs and that
the faid certificate was originally
made as it now appears bat his eyi-
dencc, the introduction Of 1Obieb 1VonId
bave been jgfjfed By the }aid /sggsfisn,
was not admitted. Thus fraud was
prsfamed not for the Purpofe of iuval-
idating, but of fupporting return
and the evidence of returning Of
ficcr who was interefted in proving
the fraud, if any, was offered to diff
prove it, and rejected. And thus
mere conjecture was admitted to con-
tradia the return, and psstive pref
denied TO confirm it.


Becaule, by the fame return from
the town of Parfonsfield, it appears
that the town clerk was alfo ieled-
man, and that he, with only one
other feleoman, fgned the return,
and as the laid town clerk was iick,
and not at the meeting when he
fcaled up the votes, it is preiuma-
bic that he was not prefent at any
itage of the proceedings but that
the meeting was held by one fele6f-
man only, and is therefore manifeft-
ly illegal.


Becaufe, the votes of the town of
Newbedford are rejected on the pre-
tence of uncertaity ariEng from two
feveral returns, certified by the fame
officers; whereas one of them ought
to be admitted and allowed for the
following reaions -


F1g. Both laid returns are made and re-
ceived by the feeretary of the Commonwealth,
within the time prefcribed by the eonftitu-
ton both are conformable in all particulars
to the requihtes of that inltrument, and they
both agree in the number of votes given TO
Caleb Strong, which was the only material
fact, that could zffea the choice Of governor
by the people.


Secondly. 1t appeared by letter inelohng
one Of faid returns 6gned by ths town clerk,
and addrefed to the fecretary Of the Com
monwealth, that the fame contained true
return, with the correction of merely clet.
ical error, made by him in former return.
BY taking this letter in connection with the
return which it contained, the return iuelf
was verified beyond all doubt BY rejecting
this paper, the frf return appeared ALTO to be
genuine But in order to make the returns
! deltructive Of each other, the laR return was
feparated from the letter which contained il,
! and thus that evidence which tysgld LaVe rewov-
| eI all dgs5t, was fevered from the return which
| it accompanied and of which it made
part, merely TO create doubt.


Thirdly. The fenate refuled to infped the
original record of the town of Newbedford,
which was produced at the board, brought
| UP by the town clerk, and which would have
A Col 6 T..I II 81
town clerk would alls have verefed, which
was the return firft tranlmitted to the fecrsta
rvs Office.


Becaufe after rejecting the returns
of Newbesford, which gave ma
jority of votes to Caleb Strong, tho
bath certified BY THE fame s6Tcer5, and
not repggnant to each otber in the ma
terial guefion ; the fenate have fele6-
ed and allowed a return from the
town of Troy, wbicb gavs 6S vOtes
sxcl4jfvely, to Jams5 Sullivan, az gov-
ernar, although there are t4Do RETURN
from Eaid fsrVn, rfpngxsnt to each ofber
IN al Particular, certified BY different
peyf0ns and appearing sn The face Of
them TO be equally authentic, and one Of
them giving So vstes sxclyGvsly to Ca
kb Strsng, and although no evidence
whatever was examined by the FEM
ate to verify either of faid returns.
But on The contrary motion made
in fenate, by one Of the majority of
faid committe to examine the evi-
dencc on one fide was withdrawn
merely becauic an amendment was
moved, which if adopted would have