The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-11-04
SHALL THE MAJORITY RULE,
Judge Ing, nbnm Hears the Case OF Flee
ton Inspector barron.

Judge Ingraham. sitting in Supreme Court,
Chambers. yesterday listened to argument as
to tho right OF ono Republican inspector Of
election 10 override two Democratic inspec-
tors in this city. and promised to give his do
cision this morning. Tho matter came before
him Oh an order to the Police Commissioners
to show cause why they should not refrain
from proceeding further in their effort to re-
movo Thonas i. Barron. n Republican in
srcctor who refused to register voters during
the absence OF one OF the Democratic inspec-
tors OF his Board.
Lawyer James W. Hawos appeared on behalf
OF Barron. and Assistant Corporation Counsel
David j. Dean for tho Police Board. Mr.. HAYES
argued that tho Commissioners were proceed
ing against Barron without cause. as he was
performing his duty under section 1888 CT
tho Consolidation act. which requires three
INSPECTORS" to concur In the finding that
voter is qualified TO register. Ho declared that
as tho last Legislature had not specifically
amended any other section of the Consolida-
tion act than section 1850, reducing the num-
her OF inspectors from four to three that Il Ia
fair to presume that it did not intend o do SO:
as was urged when the bill was on passage.
but 70 retain the safeguards against fraud,
which We're established in 1872 when the, con.
currGnrr of three INSPECTORS was required.
Mr.. liawcs. in answer to Judge lngrahams
suggestion that II might have been the intent
o, the Legislature to modify the law SO ns to
allow ~ majority Of Election Boards to per-
form tho work OF tho Board. quoted the rulo
OF the statutory construction that effect must
I've given TO every part OF II law If it can he.
md he said that there Is no reason that 1t cnn.
not hr III this case. lie cited other sections Of
tn" tunsoidation act. which lie said bore him
out n his contention. Nv then touched on tho
results vi giving Il tcpUNican inspector veto
lowcr. He said that tho courts could not
reckon con scVNrncoS and presume that OIL
cials will render themselves Liable to criminal
prosecution Ivy wiltu violation 81 law.
.ludgo lngraham asserted that the court
has nothing 20 do with tho consequences. and
that II the law requires certain things to be
done il must hC uhuyru.
Assistant Corporation Counsel Dean devoted
most of his argument to proving that it was
the intent of tho Legislature" to place II in trio
POWER Of the majority 80 act for the Board. lie
said that If Mr.. liaw"s's view OF the law were
sustained tho ono Republican. by nbs"nting
himself from every polling place in the CITY.
that the two Republicans who were formerly
in every Board might have dono SO. but they
didn't.
Mr. Dean argued. too that Barron was not
entitled to the relief afforded by writ OF pro-
hiHi;ion. but should seek his remedy in writ
! of ccrtinrari after his discharge. to which Mr..
llnwcs ,crlrd that the Police Board joined In
ASKING that decision DO had OF this question
before election day.
ind.r lneruhnm asked that there be sub
mittra to him Il brio: showing the operation Nv
IT," election laws in tho country districts. ns 1t
was suggested that the Legislature intended
to pat the election Boards in this city on I.
level with those in tn" rural districts. A ma
lurty OF country Boards control.