Massachusetts 1811 House of Representatives, Portland, Ballot 2

Office:
House of Representatives (State)
Title:
State Representative
Jurisdiction:
State
Label:
Massachusetts 1811 House of Representatives, Portland, Ballot 2
Date:
1811
State:
Massachusetts
Type:
General
Iteration:
Second Ballot
Office/Role:
House of Representatives/State Representative
Candidates:
Isaac Adams, George Bradbury, Matthew Cobb, Joseph H. Ingraham, Enoch Preble, Joseph Titcomb
Candidates: Isaac Adams[1]George Bradbury[2]Matthew Cobb[3]Joseph H. Ingraham[4]Enoch Preble[5]Joseph Titcomb[6]
Affiliation:FederalistFederalistFederalistFederalistFederalistFederalist
Final Result: [7][8][9][10]------
Town of Portland------

Notes:

[1]Elected.
[2]Elected.
[3]Elected.
[4]Elected.
[5]Elected.
[6]Elected.
[7]"The highest number on the federal ticket was 453, lowest number 446 - highest on the democratic ticket was 408, lowest 402. Previous to the adjourned meeting, Messrs. Jenks and Weeks declined being considered as candidates." Eastern Argus (Portland, ME). May 16, 1811.
[8]"The following gentlemen have been elected Representatives from Portland, by an average majority of about 46 votes." Boston Gazette (Boston, MA). May 16, 1811.
[9]"On Monday the 6th of May, the town Meeting was opened for the choice of Representatives in Portland, and the vote was taken to send six. On counting the votes carried in, it was found that there was no choice, as the Selectmen said - Being late in the day, and not having time to go through with the business, it was agreed to adjourn the meeting until Monday the 13th - Soon after the adjournment it was understood by some of the Republicans, that the Selectmen were determined to take a stand different from what had ever been taken in town for thity years past, viz they they would neither put nor suffer any names to be put on the list, altho' there was a whole week to do it in; nor would they suffer any person, to vote at the adjourned meeting unless his name was entered on the Selectmen's list. Thus determingin, contrary to every principle of the constitution, that the citizen should not enjoy the right of suffrage, to which by the constitution, he is clearly and explicitly entitled. In addition to which, when the meeting was opened they refused some whose names were on the list, and had erased the names of others, whose names were on at April meeting- and when they came forward to vote they were told, their names were not on the list. The People insisted on their constitutional right, the Selectmen replied pass on, we are not going to argue with you. Others who voted at the first meeting were refused at the adjournment. In many instances the list was marked doubtful against certain republican names; they were also ordered to pass on, and in this way were the Republican citizens of Portland, precluded from a choice of their list of Representatives. FIFTY-NINE voters were thus excluded under the sham pretence, that they did not attend when the list was revised at a meeting of the Selectmen prior to the May Election, which meeting they acknowledge was never advertised! - Yet strange it is that by some unaccountable magic on the federal side, those who had sworn out of goal but a short time since; Poor who were assisted by the town, and such as had not been naturalized but about 7 months, and who it is said never applied to have their name on the list, were allowed to vote! and even negro servants, one of whom has a wife and family in another town, and is at work here for their support, there had their names on the Selectman's list and were suffered to vote on the federal side - Whilst 58 Republicans, some of whom were born in Portland, had always been allowed to vote, many who had paid taxes from 3 to 7 years, and who the Selectmen recognized, and had no doubt of their qualifications, were rejected - and by these means, the federal candidates were declared chosen, who highest number was 452. Highest Republican vote, 408. Federal Plurality, 44. Add to 408 the 58 rejected republican votes, and it will be readily perceived that the Republicans were entitled to 466, which would have given them a plurality of 14 over the opposition list. The Selectmen desired that some republicans might sit by them and satisfy themselves of the rectitute of their proceedings; but did they attend to a single word the republicans had to say? No, but frequently the chairman declared his impartiality, while they continued checking the Republican voters. Other tribunals may be better judges as to Portland being represented the present year." Eastern Argus (Portland, ME). May 16, 1811.
[10]"In the last Argus an attempt is made to impose on the public an idea that the Selectmen of this town have conducted in a very improper manner as respects the regulation of the meeting for the choice of representatives. Let a plain statement of the facts, show how far they have merited it. Previous to the governor meeting a list of voters was made and published according to law, and public notice given of the time and place of the Board of Selectmen's being in session for the purpose of placing on the list the names of those persons who were qualified to vote, which were unknown to them. This was done. At the April meeting the names of the electors were not checked as they voted, of course it could not be known to the Selectmen but that every elector's name was on the list. Before the Representative meeting the Selectmen corrected the list, not by stricking out the names of those whom they had the strongest reasons to believe were not qualified to vote or even had a residence in, or were inhabitants of this town, but by placing a dot or mark against their names. On the morning of the day of meeting they were in session, ready to add new names, if any person had applied; but none came and no new names were added. When the meeting was opened they gave notice that if any person so marked should appear to vote, it would be expected that he should give satisfactory evidence of his being qualified, and that such evidence would be received of the votes - which were generally given in. This meeting was holden on the 6th instant - the ballot was taken - no choice was made and an adjournment to the 13th, took place. In the mean time applications were made by both parties to the Selectmen, to place names upon the list; but it being an adjournment of the same meeting, the Selectmen did not consider it legeal to do it. This course the law compelled them to adopt. When the inhabitants met upon the adjournment, the Selectmen gave like notice as before, and in the course of giving in their votes any person, so noted, who appeared to vote, was desired to step aside until the votes were generally given in - they were then desired to come forward and the chief of those who appeared, having satisfied the Selectmen, they were allowed to vote; but the most of those who were so marked, did not appear at the meeting. Surely no candid man will say that the Selectmen were governed by partial or party motives in this case. The rule operated upon federalists and democrats alike. Had the Selectmen have pursued a different mode of conduct and permitted names to be put upon the list, it would nothave materially effected the result. But it is insinuated that the names of federalists were put upon the list, this is totally false. Let any one say this in plain terms and the Selectmen will take proper notice of it. It is not denied but that a few votes were rejected who would have a legal right to vote provided they had have applied at a proper time to have their names placed upon the list - but even these were not confined to the democrats. It is said 59 votes were rejected, but no one will pretend to say that 59 legal votes were rejected. It is not true and those who make the assertion do not believe it themselves, nor doing the writer of this believe that half that number, including those who names were not upon the list were decisively rejected; but of those who were upon the list and noted as above, it is believed there were not more than five. It comes with an ill grace from those who had sent and took out of the Alms House a man to put in a democratic vote, to find fault with the Selectmen for receiving it, or to say any thing against those who have received some little assistance at an inclement season of the year, (though he had real estate sufficient to qualify him) being permitted to vote. He must be and enemy to the Constitution and a tyrant at heart, who would deny a man his right of voting who had the legal qualifications, on account of his colour. Nor is it known why a man should not have as good a right to vote who has been naturalized only 7 months as those who had been naturalized for a longer time." Portland Gazette, and Maine Advertizer (Portland, ME). May 20, 1811.

References:

Boston Gazette (Boston, MA). May 16, 1811.
Eastern Argus (Portland, ME). May 16, 1811.
Portland Gazette, and Maine Advertizer (Portland, ME). May 20, 1811.

These election records were released on 11 January 2012. Versions numbers are assigned by state. Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia are complete and are in Version 1.0. All other states are in a Beta version. For more information go to the about page.