St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-01-06
BULkELY SUSTAINED.
Connecticut Supreme Court
Talks Judge Morris Out
Of His Rights.
Declaration Of the Result Is
the Only Evidence Of an
Election,
And the Constitution Quoted
to Favor the Man With
Fewest Votes.
Lack OF a Good Law Noted and
Also the Assembly's
Neglect.

Hartford. Conn.,, Jan. 5.-The su-
preme court unanimously sustained the
demurrer of Gov. Bulkely, the hold
over governor in the quo warrahto suit
of Morris, the Democratic candidate for
governor. The court says that the dec
laration of the result is an indispensable
adjunct to the choice of governor and
furnishes the only authentic evidence
OF an election. Judge Morris has
not been declared elected by the
house. The court says the right to
choose any state officer, unless the re-
suit of the choice can be published in
some way so as to be obligatory on the
whole state, would be no better than
mockery: it wonld be to give the former
case without 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 court can take judi
cial 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.
The Declaration
is the only evidence by which the other
departments of the government and the
citizens generally can know whom to
respect as such officer; and In order
that the declaration shall be made of
the result of an election for governor in
way TO be obligatory to everybody, the
constitution has fixed the time and
manner in which the general assembly
shall make that declaration. Unless
the declaration is made i'll the way so
provided, the process of the election is
not complete.
1t is found in this case that there had
been no declaration by the general as
Sembly that the reIator had been elected
governor, and it is not claimed that
there has been any equivalent act by
any other authorities. 1t follows that
the relator, Whatever any future inquiry
may show, cannot now be said to have
been elected TO the Office of governor,
and that the respondent remains the de
Jure as we'll as the de facto governor of
the state. Ii is, therefore. the duty of
all citizens. of the court, of all depart
ments of the state government and of
both houses OF the general asse mbly to
respect and obey him accordingly. The
court then proceeds to consider whether
the present general assembly has the
power to declare the
Result OF the Election.
recognizes that the two houses
are not in accord, and says: when
one house has approved upon it's Jour
nal conclusion radically antagonistic
| to the conclusion of the other upon the
same subject, it can only be regarded as
an announcement that they are unable
| to agree" The court says, however, it
is still possible for either house or both
| 10 recede, and so the power of acting on
the case is not yet lost by the general
| assembly. The lack of law to deter
mine such disputes is pointed out.
and the fact that the general
assembly is responsible for such
lack, since the constitution directs
II to make laws to that end
The court saySl in conclusion: ''The
superior court OF this state, as court
| or law. is court of general Jurisdiction.
1t has jurisdiction of all matters ex-
pressly committed to it and of all others
cognizable by any court of law of which
the exclusive jurisdiction is not given
to some other court.
Jurisdiction Complete.
THE fact that no other court has ex-
elusive jurisdiction in any matter is suf-
nCiShe ~ SifO TIC oupCIlOI COuiG JuElS-
diction over that matter. The trial by
the superior court of the questions i'm
the information would not be an in
fringement upon the powers of the CO.
ordinate branches of the government,
nor of the legislative. if 1t has been
made to appear that the present legisla-
ture is wholly unable to act in the case.
1t is no infringement upon the executive
powers to decide who is chosen GOV
ernor.
10 decide what person is lawfully
elected to any Office is judicial pro-
cess, and where there is no tribunal
specially authorized to make such de-
cision the courts must decide, and the
courts always have jurisdiction unless
the decision of this special tribunal is
final and conclusive. And where such
special tribunal exists, if it refuses to
act, or from any cause fails to act, then
the courts upon general principles, and
to prevent the failure of Justice, and
perhaps to prevent anarchy and mis-
rule, would seem to be authorized to
make the decision.