Morning journal and courier., 1891-11-24
MORRIS VERSUS BULKRLEY.

from the Plaintiffs Brief.
 HARTFORD, Nov. 23.-The arguments in the Morris-Bulkeley quo warranto case were opened before the supreme court this morning by Charles J. Cole. On the bench were Chief Justice Andrews and Judges Carpenter, Seymour, Torrance and Fenn, the latter being called in to fill vacancy, making two democrats and three republi- cans on the bench.
 The personal counsel of Bulkeley went over the principal points in the republican brief. In substance he said: "The governor must, whether he will or not, hold his of fee until his successor has been declared to the general assembly. Secondly, in formation in the nature of quo warranto does not lie against the governor. It is the movement of 8 lower against higher power, subversive of the theory of the proceeding and the hefundamental principles of common law. The three branches of the government are coordinate. One cannot interfere with another. In the process of impeachment both houses sit in joint as- sembly and chief justice presides over them; and shall a judge of an inferior court, by information in the nature of quo war rauGO, sedrCu tuo Ultlo u tuc ulSAc5U OAACoI of the state?'
 Mr. Cole argues that the jurisdiction of the general assembly is full, final, complete and exclusive, and the general assembly is still in session. Judge Stoddsrd replied for Judge Morris. After him MT. Case l will speak for the republican side. Ex- Governor Ingersoll will follow and Hon. Henry c. Robinson will close for the de- fsndant. Bulkeley, Judge Morris and many public men were in the court room yesterday morning. Extracts from the brief for the plaintiff, Judge Morris, which is signed by Charles R. Ingersoll, Tilton B. Doolittle and Henry Stoddard as counsel, are as follows:
 "The question at bar is, whether the de- fendant Is the rightful and lawful govern or of the state of Connecticut. If he is such governor this action must necessarily fail, but if he is not the governor of this state, this action necessarily succeeds, and the proper judgment must be rendered &C., cordingly.
 "Whether the defendant is not the gov erner of this state is resolved by determin- ing whether or no the relator has been elected to that office and duly qualified. It is admitted that the relator has duly qualified if he was elected, and the defend ants sole contention is, therefore, that Luzon B. Morris, the relator, was not al the last state election elected governor of | this state.
 "By an information in the nature of 6 l quo warranto this court will search the | title to an office The very right to ths | office is established in such an action. Il is an adversary proceeding, in which pri vate rights must be determined by tht | judgment Of this court, and only inciden | tally are public interests involved. l "The case presents no question of juris 1 diction. An unlawful, unfounded and pre- tended claim of title to the office of gover nor cannot oust this court of jurisdiction to determine whether in truth or in fac the defendant is by law entitled to suel office "
 After reciting the conceded facts th democratic counsel say the plaintiffs con l tentions are:
 "1st-That the election was held ant consummated by the electors of this state in the electors meeting held on the 4tl | day of November, 1890, and that the gen eral assembly does not participate in tn election of governor but only declares tn result, as that result appears from certail figures.
 | ''2d-That the fair list and the return of the presiding officers of the vote actual | ly counted and by the board of canvasser laid before the general assembly is prim facie and presumably correct, and mus necessarily stand until altered, amended or set aside by some competent authority
 '3d-lf there is power existent any where to alter, amend or vary the fair lis and the returns of presiding officer (which we utterly deny), such power cal exist only in the general assembly, whicl body can act only through the co-o1dinat I of fhat truro xr,I; it. Neither house can of it's own motiol alter or amend said list and returns be cause that can be done only by the genera assembly. A refusal on the part of eithe house to change the list and returns neces sarily involves refusal on the part 0 the general assembly because the assent o both houses is indispensable to sue change.
 "4th-Under our constitution and prac tice there is no power on the part even C the general assembly, much less of eithe
 house composing it, to alter, vary ( amend said list and returns ,and the duty (
 said assembly and of each constituent hous
 is simply ministerial, to-wit, to ascertai
 from said fair list and returns the resu
 of the election and then to declare that r,
 suit.
 ''5th-In the present case both branche
 of the general assembly have ascertaine
 the fact to be that the relator received
 clear majority of all the votes cast as show
 by the list and returns, which are the sol
 evidence of the fact, but the house of rel
 resentatives, in violation of it's duty unde
 the constitution, refuses to declare what
 necessary inference from such finding to-wit, that the relator was elected. "6th-That no unlawful and unconst
 tutional refusal on the part of the house
 representatives to formally declare the r.
 suit, as shown by the documents and foun , by the house, can deprive the electors
 this state of their constitutional right {
 elect governor, nor deprive the relator the office to which he has been elected; an
 stated broadly, that the right to the ofie
 depends upon the election to that office h
 the electors, and does not depend upon tt certificate of a declaration of election l.
 the house.
 ''7th-This court will not allow a mel
 matter of form to stand in the way of a
 election completed in substance and e sence. but will adjudge the relator to | lawfully elected to the office of governe
 in spite of the refusal by one branch the general assembly to perform it's dut by passing the customary formal declar
 ton.
 "It is curious, and reflects a vivid IgI | upon the u6IenQanGS clam to cOnsldt briefly the alleged reasons of the house fc not obeying the mandates of the constit, tion, and the course of action of the hous instead of the plain simple course pointe
 out by the constitution.
 "Instead of this course, 80 marked o1
 by the constitution, the house resolve
 that the legislative day of the general a
 sembly is not the solar day, and that tt
 legislative day of the general assembl
 should be projected into the future, an
 extend over and cover a possible period (
 months and some twenty five or more day
 of actual session of the house, which actio
 was taken by the house without concul
 renee of the senate and in defiance of il
 action.
 'This course of action (the delay in d.
 claring Staub elected) by the house of re,
 resentatives has no semblance to tho du,
 orderly, lawful exercise of power. The,
 is no precedent or warrant in the law fe
 it. It is both unconstitutional and extr
 constitutional. It is is simply revol,
 tionary in it's essence, substance and te,
 dency.
 "The contention of the plaintiff is tn,
 the electors, in town or electors meeting
 elect their governor; and that neither tl
 general assembly nor any other bod.