[City documents, 1847-1867]

ru)

ARN
Lines,

City Documeni—No. 3.

MINORITY REPORT

OF

THE COMMITTEE

ON THE

REMONSTRANCE OF WM. KR. HUSTON,

RELATIVE TO THE

MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF WARD 3.

ROE UR:
JOHN M. HEWES, PRINTER.
1858.

City of Noxburn.

In Common Councit, JAN. 4, 1858.

Remonstrance read, and referred to a Special Committee of five, con-
' sisting of Messrs. Nichols, Tower, Bumstead, Brewer, and Batchelder.

FRANKLIN WILLIAMS, Clerk.

In Common Counc, JAN. 11, 1858.

Ordered, That the Committee on the Remonstrance of William R. Hus-
ton be authorized to submit their report in print.

FRANKLIN WILLIAMS, Clerk.

REPORT.

In Common Councit, Jan. 14, 1858.

THE Committee to whom was referred the protest of W. R.
Huston, have considered the subject and beg leave to report in
general terms, that the officers entrusted with the care of the
meeting held in the Ward Room of Ward 3, on Monday, Dec.
14th, 1857, appear to have been guilty of carelessness in their
proceedings, and they also failed to comply with the formal re-
quirements of the law provided to regulate elections.

In the special matter of the election of members of the Common
Council from Ward 3, your Committee submit a brief statement of
facts elucidated by their investigations, and also give deductions
and conclusions.

The whole subject naturally resolves itself into two parts; in
the first of which, the thing desired, is to ascertain who were
rightfully elected as Common Councilmen ?

Mr. Pennock, Clerk of Ward 38, is willing to swear that his
record is correct, and by his record, Samuel Little, P. H. Rog-
ers, Thomas J. Mayall and J. M. Way, are returned as elected.
In opposition to the oath of the Clerk, there is opinionative
evidence.

Mr. W. R. Huston, Warden of Ward 3, pro tem., “ thinks no
ballots were thrown by persons not legal voters.’? “ Thinks no
person could foot Clerk’s columns of figures correctly,” and says,
“there were blots upon the records ;”’ also says, that ‘in adding
up the column of figures containing the number of votes given for
W. R. Huston, the Clerk made an error of six.”

Mr. Wiggin, Inspector in Ward 3, says, ‘he places no re-
liance upon the Clerk’s records.”

4

Mr. Gragg, Inspector in Ward 3, says, he thinks “ the Clerk
was correct and the Warden incorrect in the addition of the col-
umn of figures containing the number of votes for W. R. Huston.”
He also gives, as his ‘* decided opinion, that Samuel Little,
P. H. Rogers, Thomas J. Mayall and J. M. Way, were right-
fully elected.”

The oath of the Clerk and the evidence of Mr. Gragg es-
tablish, beyond a doubt, the election of Samuel Little, P. H.
Rogers, Thomas J. Mayall and J. M. Way, as members of the
Common Council for the year 1858.

In the second part of the subject, the thing desired, is to de-
termine whether the negligence of the Ward officers, in not com-
plying with the formal demands of the law, deprives the gentle-
men, rightfully elected, of their seats. ‘The principal demand of
the law, which was not complied with, is, that the number of votes
given for each person was not written in the Ward records in
words at length, in open Ward meeting, and thus the whole sub-
ject is narrowed down to one question, which is,—if the non-
compliance of the Clerk with the strict requirements of the law
vacates the election? This being purely a question of law, your
Committee have obtamed and appended the opinion of the City
Solicitor, which is as follows :—

‘¢ T am of opinion,” (says the City Solicitor, ) “* that the failure
on the part of the Clerk to register the votes in open Ward meet-
ing, in the manner required by the City Charter, will not vacate
the election.”

Your Committee coincide with the City Solicitor in his decis-
ion, and the matter bemg thus disposed of, they ask to be dis-
charged from further consideration of the subject.

For the Committee,
J. A. TOWER.

ig

ey

MA

ts x
; ant

We ot ere

ET