Case of Baker

1 Armstrong. Election Cases 401
CourtNew York State Assembly
DecidedJanuary 2, 1867
StatusPublished

This text of 1 Armstrong. Election Cases 401 (Case of Baker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York State Assembly primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Case of Baker, 1 Armstrong. Election Cases 401 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1867).

Opinion

Reports Presented.

January 11, 1867.

Mr. Chamberlain, from the majority of the committee on privileges and elections, to which was referred the petition of S. Baker, con[402]*402testing the seat of lion. L. H. Gregory, reported thereon in writing, and recommended the adoption of the following resolution :

Hesolved, That Stephen Baker is entitled to the seat held and now occupied by Lewis il. Gregory, and that said Gregory, who is properly the contestant, have the privilege of contesting the same.

Mr. W. S. Clark, from the minority of said committee, reported in writing adversely to the prayer of said petitioner.

The question being upon the adoption of the majority report,

Mr. Weed moved that the majority and minority reports of the committee on privileges and elections, in the case of the seat of lion. Mr. Gregory, contested by Col. Baker, be laid upon the table, and that said reports, with the proceedings before the committee, be forthwith printed and placed upon the files of the members of this House.

Mr. Speaker put the question whether the House would agree to said motion, and it was determined in the affirmative.

Assembly Journal, 1867, page 79.

Repoets oe Minority and Majority.

Assembly Chamber, Jcmuary 15, 1867.

Mr. Chamberlain called from the table the report of the committee ' on privileges and elections, in the words following, to wit:

Report oe the Committee on Privileges and Elections relative to the Seat now held by Lewis Ii. Gregory, oe Phtnam County. — Majority Report.

The committee on privileges and elections, to which was referred the petition of Stephen Baker, Esq., claiming the seat in the Assembly now held and occupied by Lewis H. Gregory as member of Assembly for the county of Putnam, would most respectfully report:

That the committee met in the city of Albany on. the 9th day of January, 1867, and, that the said contestant appeared in person, and with counsel, Waldo Hutchings, Esq.

The sitting member also appeared in person, with his counsel, Ira Shafer, Esq.

That from the returns of the board of canvassers of the county of Putnam, the following facts appeared, to wit:

That the whole number of votes cast for member of Assembly in the county of Putnam was two thousand seven hundred and thirty (2,730), of which Stephen Baker received one thousand three hundred and sixty (1,3.60); Lewis H. Gregory received one thousand [403]*403three hundred and sixty-four (1,364); Ool. Baker received one (L).; S. Baker received five (5).

In view of these facts, the committee are of the opinion that the five votes cast for S. Baker should be allowed to Stephen Baker, and that the return of the board of canvassers of said county of Putnam shows, upon its face, that Stephen Baker was duly elected member of Assembly for said county, and they therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolution:

Resolved, That Stephen Baker is entitled to the seat held and now occupied by Lewis Ii. Gregory, and that said Gregory, who is properly the contestant, have the privilege of contesting the same.

L. H. HISCOCK.

W. B. CHAMBERLAIN.

ABRAHAM HOFFMAN.

Mihobity Report.

The undersigned, the minority of your committee on privileges and elections, to which was referred, with others, the case of Stephen Baker, contestant of the seat of Hon. Lewis II. Gregory, of Putnam county, respectfully state, that at an adjourned meeting of said committee, held on the evening of January 9th, inst., to settle the preliminary proceedings in said matter, the majority of said committee arrived at a conclusion, from which, and the report of said majority, they respectfully^ dissent, for the reasons following :

First. That by the certified return of the county canvassers of Putnam county, presented to your committee by counsel for the contestant, Stephen Baker, it appears that said canvassers, upon an estimate of the votes returned for the office of member of Assembly in said county, determined that the number of votes cast for Hon. Lewis H. Gregory was one thousand three hundred and sixty-four; that the number of votes cast for Stephen Baker, the contestant,, was one thousand three hundred and sixty, and that the number of votes cast for S. Baker was five; which is evidence to the undersigned that said canvassers determined that said five votes were not votes for Stephen Baker, the contestant, and that said five votes ought not, therefore, in the absence of proof, be allowed to said Stephen Baker, contestant.

Second. It appears upon an examination of the certified canvass of the votes cast at the late election in the town of South-east, in said county of Putnam, that the whole number of votes cast for Gover[404]*404nor in said town was five hundred and six; and that the whole number of votes cast for member of Assembly in said town, including the five S. Baker votes, was five hundred and seven; making the aggregate number of votes cast for member of Assembly in said town, exceed the aggregate number of votes cast for Governor in said town by one vote.

Third. The lion. Lewis H. Gregory, by. his counsel, denied both ■'..he sufficiency and the accuracy of said certificate of the county canvassers of said county, and offered to show, by competent evidence, that four of said votes for S. Baker were corrected and allowed the contestant, Stephen Baker, in the canvass of the votes given in said town of South-east, and were included in the number of votes returned for Stephen Baker, contestant, to the county canvassers by the board of inspectors of election in said town of South-east; also to show, by competent evidence, that in said county one illegal vote was cast for said contestant, and that in the canvass and estimate of the votes cast for member of Assembly in said county, said illegal vote was counted and allowed to the said contestant; also, to prove that in said county one legal vote cast for said Hon. Lewis H. Gregory was rejected, and not allowed said Gregory in the estimate and canvass of votes returned cast for said Gregory ; all of which proof, in the opinion of the undersigned, should have been received and examined by the committee before making its award.

Fourth. It seems, to the'undersigned, that the award of the seat to the contestant, Stephen Baker, with the right or leave to the said Lewis II. Gregory to contest the same is, in the face of the offered evidence, a conclusion altogether anomalous and unauthorized by precedent, and- tending not only to complicate the question, but to embarrass both the House and the committee by necessitating both' to sit ip judgment upon their own decisions.

The undersigned, therefore, beg leave to report that, in their judgment, the whole question, with all the issues between the said Stephen Baker, contestant, and Hon. Lewis II. Gregory, should be recommitted to your committee for their examination and determination upon the evidence which may be adduced before it under the above offer, together with such additional evidence as shall be gei1-main to the issue.

¥M. S. CLARK.

THOS. J. CREAMER.

Dated Albany, Ja/rdy 10, 1867.

Assembly Document, 1867, volume 1, Ho. 12.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Armstrong. Election Cases 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/case-of-baker-nystateassembly-1867.