Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1887-1895, 1891-07-18
THE CONNECTICUT CONTROVERSY
No Partisan Majority Should be Per-
mitted to Go Behind the Returns

"'''AoA Ill Sohnectlcut the New York
Times of to-day says:
Mr. Harrison, who is one of the most
prominent republican politicians in the
state of Connecticut, plainly saws in his
letter to Mr. Porter: DR. Alsop did receive
a majority of all the votes lawfully cast
Tor Lieutenant governor, and John j. Phe-
ian dld receive a majority of all the votes
1 nav cast for secretary. believe that
MIR Sanger received majority of the
votes lawfully cast for treasurer. and il ia
certain that there is no sufficient evidence
to show that he did not. The pentlemen
named were the democratic candidates for
offices mentioned, but they have not vet
been permitted to take them. This state
ment Mr. Porter in his reply did not at
tempt to controvert, though he gave a
good deal of attention to less im6ortant
statements as to the manner in which the
special committees report was "tixed NM
70 gustlty the rejection of candidates who
nad oeen elected. Another member of
the special committee is reported as saw
ing that if the examination of the so
called "double ballots' made on the 4tb
OF May by the republican state committee
snail show that they were properly re-
Jected it will result in declaration that
Alsop and Phelan were elected.
considering that the question of the
election of at least two of the democratic
candidates is admitted to be still oman II
may be worth while to recur to that in
famous report of January %, and noint
out once more the process by which the
verdict OF the people, was set aside by
one branch OF the Connecticut legislature
aT Inc dlctatlon of gang of politicians.
The face of the returns showed that Mo-.
ris for governor had a clear majority Of
26, Alsop for lieutenant governor 559
sanger for treasurer 290, Phelan for secre,
tary OF state 544, and Staub for controller
l,oo5. BY examining the various returns
as tney reached the secretary of state. the
special committee ascertained that for the
whole state ,289 ballots had been reiectad
by local election officers. From these thev
nshed out 45e rejected for being double. 1O3
Tor having the word for before the desip-
nation OF the office to be filed, 1911 for no
cause Soeolhed, except in some cases nv
tne WORD illegal, and 1875 for having dis
1ingulsnlng marks upon them, and it was
claimed that in Norwich 20 votes had
been credited to the democratic candi-
dates IN excess of the number cast for
them. The committee added up these
hgures and got total of S2S. which il
aooeo TO the aggregate vote cast as shown
by the official canvass, leaving the demo-
cratic vote unchanged and thereby wipinp
out the majolities for all the Democratic
candidates except Staub.
There was nothing on the face of the re-
turns to show for what candidates the re-
Jected ballots had been cast, and so far as
appeared they were as likely to be those of
one party as another. They might have
increased rather than diminished the dem
ocratic majorities, SO far as the COMMITTEES
knew from the returns. The claim "a to
the ~ votes in Norwich was disputed and
never proved. If we remember rightly. it
was pretty conclusively refuted. The com
mlttee professed to have ascertained nv
extrlnsic evidence that the for ballots
were prepared and cast for prohibition
candidates, though it did not see the
ballots themselves, and as there has been
a judicial dlctum in decision upon anoth-
er question that the mere presence of the
WORD for before the designation of the
Office does not invalidate a ballot in Con
nectlcut, we presume that Mr. Harrison
bases upon the rejection of these his onin-
ION that Morris did not receive a majority
OF the votes lawfully cast for governor
Inc committee also professed to have as
certalned by extrinsic evidence and with
out seeing the ballots that those rejected
IN Bridgeport for bearing distinguishing
marks were republican ballots, and did
not, in fact, bear any such marks, al
though the local moderator had made an
afhdavlt to the effect that they did But
counting in both these and the for) bal
lots did not wipe out the majority of any
democratic candidate except Morris, even
after deducting the twenty Norwich votes,
though it left Sanger with narrow mar
gin.
las to the 459 double ballots and the
~ rejected for no cause clearly specified,
679 in all, the special committee found
out nothing whatever. They were scat
tered through the returns and were doubt
less for candidates of different parties, and
so far as the committee knew, they may
all have been democratic votes, in which
case they would have increased the demo-
cratic majorities materially, in spite of
the deductions on the other accounts
Some of them were unquestionably demo-
cratic votes, very likely the greater part
of them, but on this point the committee
knew nothing. And yet it resorted to the
contemplate trick of adding them in a
lump to the total, and, as if they were
necessarily anti-democratic, leaving the
democratic vote unchanged, and by that
shallow device it produced the appear
ance of vanishing of all the
democratic majorities except that for con-
troller. A more disreputable scheme of
counting out could hardly be conceived,
ana Cne rlSnC OF Alsop, Sanger and Phe-
Ian to the Offices to which they were
elected does not depend upon any report
of a partisan republican committee as to
whether the double ballots were properly
rejected or not.
"Tho only true principle is that for
which the democrats have consistently
commended from the first, and to which it
is to be hoped that they will adhere to the
end. Local election officers may have I'M
Willingly committed errors in rejecting bal
lots as illegal, but these are as likely as not
to offset each other 80 far as party results
are concerned. At all events, the face of the
returns as finally canvassed by the proper
state officers should determine once for all
the result of the election. No partisan
majority in a legislature and no partisan
committee should be permitted to go be-
hind the returns to revise or modify
the work of the peoples local election Of
fcers. The moment that is allowed, con-
fusion and uncertainty are sure to follow,
and returning board decisions are substi-
tuted for a popular vote in determining
who shall hold Office"
SOCIETY AND MIR MEETINGS