The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-01-06
BULKELEY Is GOVERNOR.

The Connecticut Supreme Court Decides
Against Morris. the Democratic Candidate.
HARTFORD. Conn. Jan. 5.-The Supreme
Court unanimously sustained the demurrer
of Governor Bulkeley, the hold-over Gov
ernor, in the quo warranto suit of Morris.
the late Democratic candidate. The court
says that the declaration of the result is
an indispensable adjunct to the choice of
Governor, as it furnishes the only authentic
evidence of an election. lJ udge Morris
has not been declared elected by the
Housed. The court says the right TO
choose any State officer unless the result
of the choice can be published in some way
SO as to be obligatory on tho whole State,
would be no better than q mockery; it
would be to give the form of a choice with
out the reality. The declaration Is the
only evidence by which the person elected
can know that he Is entitled to the office,
or the previous incumbent know that his
term has expired. The courts can take
judicial notice of the fact of an election
but never of the result of an election or of
who is elected. until some declaration is
made. 1t is, therefore, the duty of all citi-
zens. of the courts. OF all departments of
the State government. and of both houses
of tho General Assembly to respect and
obey him accordingly.
The court then proceeds to consider
whether the present General Assembly has
power TO declare the result of the election.
and recognizes that the two houses are not
IN accord. 1t says: When each house has
approved upon its journal conclusion
radically antagonistIc to the conclusions of
the other upon the same subject. 1t can
only be regarded as an announcement
that they are unable to agree" The court
says, however, 1t Is still possible for either
house. or both, to recede and so the power
of acting on the case is not yet lost by the
General Assembly. The lack of a law TO
determine such disputes is pointed ont, and
the fact that the General Assembly is re-
ep0nsible for such lack, since the Constitu-
tion directs it to make laws to that end.
The court says. in conclusion: ''TheiSu-
perior Court of this State, as n court of
law. is q court of general jurisdiction. 1t
committed to it. and of all others cogniz-
able by any conrt of law of which the ex-
elusive jurisdiction Is not given to some
other court. The fact that no other court
has exclusive jurisdiction IN any matter is
sufficient to give the Superior Court juris-
diction over that matter. The trial by
the Superior Court of the questions
In the information would not be an
infringement upon the powers of the
coordinate branches of the government.
Not of the legislative. if it has been made
to appear that the present Legislature is
wholly unable TO act in the case. lt is no
infringement upon the executive powers TO
decide who is chosen Governor. 10 decide
what person is lawfully elected TO any
office is q judicial process. and where there
is no tribunal specially authorized to make
such decision the courts always have Juris-
dIction. unless the decision of this special
tribunal exists. Ifit refuses to act. or from
any cause fails to act then the courts. upon
general principles and to prevent the faii-
ure of justice, and, perhaps. to prevent an
archy and mierule. would seem 70 be author
lied to make tho decision."