Morning journal and courier., 1882-12-23

sents the Twelfth ward Alderman and Coun- cilmen, objected to those cases being included, as separate law points would be involved. It was finally decided that the petitions of Charles Kimberly against John w. Lake and John H. Whiting vs.J James F. Pigott be heard together. MT. Doolittle, who appears for Mir. Lake, opened the proceedings by reading first from the Connecticut statute of a law passed in 1918 giving the citizen right to vote. The only limitation is that the elect OTIS vote at election shall be by ballot
 MT. Doolittle claimed that the voter had the right to vote as he pleased so long as he quired of him. He could vote openly or
 secretly as he saw fit. He also claimed that
 if the vote was received that it must be
 counted
 Mir. Pigott followed Mir. Doolittle. He
 claimed that the intention of the voter and | the will of the people should not be set aside | on mere technicality. It was not alleged nor shown that there had been fraud or in-
 timidation at the recent election. MT. Pigott
 was inclined to be humorous. and when he
 stated that the other side was represented by l civil service reformers, who seemed anxious | to get themselves into office, laugh went
 round the room, and even Justice Park
 smiled.
 Judge Lynde Harrison followed MT. Pigott
 and argued that 1t was only when special
 election was held that directory provision
 could be enforced. He said that the black | ballot did not in any way affect the purity of
 the elections. The end to be achieved was
 the purity and freedom of elections. The
 statute claims that all ballots shall be printed
 on plain white paper, and the most that can
 be done is to prosecute the parties offering
 such ballots and the moderator who receives
 them. He claimed that therefore the provis-
 ion was simply directory and not mandatory.
 In closing he said: s'I am just as good Re-
 publican any here present, and I have d.
 ways voted the straight Republican ticket. If this proceeding is successful 1t ought to ) be labelled proceeding to destroy the Re- ) publican party in New Haven and in the , State of Connecticut
 $. E. Baldwin followed Judge Harrison. 1 He said that they were arguing demurrer in ) the case of Kimberly vs. Lake in which it was l claimed that John w. Lake, who was declared { lot as required by law. He quoted from the ! allegations in support of his claim.
 'ti THE THIRD WARD COUNT.
 ,] While MT. Baldwin was speaking Hobart , l.. Hotchkiss came in with report of the
 recount of the Third ward vote. He passed
 tthe report to Judge Park, who looked it over , and then passed it to the attorneys who
 that there were s1 votes too many counted for Mir. Andrew, which gave Mir. Lewis 4s
 majority for Mayor. Mir. Doolittle stated
 to the court that perhaps count in other , wards would be deemed necessary by his 1 client, Mir. Andrew. The attorneys or the other side took exception te , this, and Judge Park promptly decided that this question could not be considered as it was not embodied in the answer of the de ferdant. Judge Park then decided that
 Henry G. Lewis elected Mayor of tht l city of New Haven by AS majority.
 After Judge Park had rendered his deci sion Mir. Baldwin resumed his argument or 3 the black ballot question. He quoted from f. several authorities in other States to show
 that the ballots were illegal, and in closing
 ha 4In,1 h fha only court to consider was whether the ballot wal 5 voted on plain white paper as required by th' 4 statuts If it was not then the ballots in al 9 the contesting cases should be recounted. 7 Judge Blydenburgh followed MT. Baldwi Il 9 He said in his opening remarks that hs dit l not purpose to question the right of the Leg @ islature to prescribe the kind of ballot tha f should be cast at elections. He said that th @ first question to be discussed was whether : this black ballot was lawful one The law o the purpose of preserving the purity of thu J. ballot box. He claimed that the ballot wa d that by which the will of the voter was indi e cated. If the ballot in question was lawful d what ballot was unlawful Whethe y or not the paper at some tim
 had been white paper, yet when d was presented to the counters it was blacl h paper. When an elector presents an ualaw }. full ballot, as in this case, he commits an un t. lawful act. In closing he said: These bal
 .olo 'n"' neavS peeh cas' III cnAs way noeu 1 o 5 thrown out, and cannot be counted. Tn 4 law of the State is not simply directory, bu 3 mandatory, in this regard.
 ; Mir. DooEttle made the closing argument He said that it was his priv E lege to vote by ballot, and in hi II opinion the ballots in dispute were printe 7; on plain white, paper. When his ballot wa deposited in the ballot box that was an ex !" pression of his vote and no one had righ B to throw it out He said the moderator onl j. could reject his vote, and only at the tim ,. ! when he presented it.
 ! This closed the argunents~for the day, an u at ten minutes before an adjournment wa E ordered until next Wednesday morning at l E { ] o'clock when the case will be further COT T. sidered by Judge Park.
 r. Opinions are divided as to the result of th le hearing although the prevailing one seen 's to be that the black ballots will be throw out which will necessitate new count in a
 | the other wards