New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-06-05
TIE cnNNECTICUT CASE.

The decision of the Supreme court OF Oon-
necticut lust handed down in the case OF
Democrat who contested local election on the
ground that the tickets cast for his successful
competitor bore on them the word For pre-
oeding the name of the office that was to be
filled. covers precisely the question that has so
long been at issue in that State over the Gov-
ernorship. and vindicates the conduct OF Gov
ernor Bulkeley and the Republican majority OF
the House. The point is an exceedingly simple
one. The Connecticut Election law requires
that an electoral ballot shall contain only the
name Of the office to be filled and that Of the
person voted for to fill it. A further require
ment is that there shall be no mark or device
on any ballot by which it may he particularly
DISTINGUISHED. Now. in the last State election
the ballots of the Prohibition party all con-
tanned the word For' preceding the names OF
the offices that were being contested and about
4. 600 such ballots were cast IL IS obvious
that if any of these were legal all were, ana
if any were in violation Of the law all were
But when they were canvaSsed the election
officers in certain towns threw out 126 such
ballots. All the rest we're duly counted
The Democratic candidate for Governor
Judge Morris. had plurality of votes over MS
Republican rival, but in Connecticut plurality
;s not sufficient 10 elect The successful cam
didate must have clear majority over all, other
uise the contest is removed 10 the Legislature
Had all these Prohibition votes been excluded
Judge Morris would have been overwhemlngy
elected. Had all been counted he would have
been defeated, and tho condition produced by
throwing out the 1876 Prohibition ballots and
by counting all the rest was that he had clear
majority of 26 votes. Ignoring the absurdity
of counting 1000 such ballots and throwing
out 1875, the Democrats held that their can
didate had been duly elected. The
Republicans took the position that the in
clusion of the word I" For'' was within the lawI
that il had actually been inserted in dummy
ballot sent out by the Secretary of State, under
the AttOrney-G eneraPs supervision, when the
law passed, as an instruction to county officers
how ballots were to be printed, and that being
used by all the Prohibition voters, it did not
so distinguish a particular ballot as to come
within the prohibition of the law.
But the Democrats were stubborn. They
stormed and ragged about the Republicans try
ing to steal the State, and their partsans every
where echoed these outcries. The State Senate
was Democratic, and IL would not be induced
to meet with the House to canvass the vote and
to perform the constitutional duty Of electing
Governor. Mr. Bull1eIey, as the occupant OF
the Office and sworn to hold 1t until his sue
cessor was elected and qualified, refused TO sur
render, and the prolonged deadlock at New
Haven which has been so widely discussed,
continued until the Legislature adjourned
The court now holds that the Ian
guage of the act in describing how the
ticket should be printed is not so clear as to
justify the throwing out of ballot merely be-
cause it used word TO render the voters pur-
pose the more unmistaSable. This Is common
sense, and as such must commend itself TO all
but unreasoning partisans Governor Bulkeley
Is TO be warmly commended for the strong and
conservative course he has taken in crisis so
prolonged and so full of difficulty. He has
acted the right part with good motives and in
a worthy spirit We much mistake the char
acter of the people of Connecticut III they do
not inhict a severe punishment upon the party
which has so abused its functions and so
harassed the administration of the laws and
whose conduct has been without justification in
law or in morals.