Difference between revisions of ".MTczOA.MjAxMzc"
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Afternoon - Met according to adjournment. | Afternoon - Met according to adjournment. | ||
| − | The House resumed the consideration of the report of the joint committee appointed to examine the returns of votes given for Governor - the question before the House at the last adjournment being on amending the report 'by striking out the votes of the town of Mercer", and this question was taken by yeas & nays & decided in the negative as follows yeas 4. Nays 132 see appendix page 278.) | + | The House resumed the consideration of the report of the joint committee appointed to examine the returns of votes given for Governor - the question before the House at the last adjournment being on amending the report 'by striking out the votes of the town of Mercer", and this question was taken by yeas & nays & decided in the negative as follows yeas 4. Nays 132 see appendix page 278.) Mr Ruggles of Thomaston then moved "that the votes returned from Sunkhase for Samuel L Smith be counted as scattering votes" - and this question was decided by yeas & nays in the negative as follows, yeas 65 nays 77. (see appendix page 282) |
Revision as of 20:58, 28 August 2020
39
the report "by striking out the votes of the towns of Alexander, Vinalhaven, Charlestown, Solon, Cherryfield & Plantation No 14 or Mariaville South" and this question was decided in the negative by yeas & nays as follows yeas 1. nays 138 - see appendix page 274) Mr Smith of Nobleboro' then moved to amend the report "by striking out the votes of the town of Mercer" but before this question was taken the House, Adjourned until afternoon.
Afternoon - Met according to adjournment.
The House resumed the consideration of the report of the joint committee appointed to examine the returns of votes given for Governor - the question before the House at the last adjournment being on amending the report 'by striking out the votes of the town of Mercer", and this question was taken by yeas & nays & decided in the negative as follows yeas 4. Nays 132 see appendix page 278.) Mr Ruggles of Thomaston then moved "that the votes returned from Sunkhase for Samuel L Smith be counted as scattering votes" - and this question was decided by yeas & nays in the negative as follows, yeas 65 nays 77. (see appendix page 282)