Morning journal and courier., 1892-01-06
THE SUPREME COURT SPEAKS.

THE SUPREME COURT SPEAKS.
Governor BulkeIey,. Demurrer su..
tained-His Title Made Iear-Judge
Morris Case Defeetive-rhe Legfs-
lature's Rights Carefully Respected.
Following is the full text Of the decision
OF the Supreme court of Connecticut in
the quo warranto case of Judge Morris
against Governor Bulkeley:
This is an information in the nature of
quo warranto. 1t alleges that the respon-
dent, since the Sth of January last. has
used and exercised the Office of governor of
this state. and threatens and intends to
continue to use said office. its dignities.
liberties and franchises, and prays that he
may be required to show by what warrant
he claims to use and exercise said Office.
The respondent demuIred 10 the infor-
nation. The superior court made find
| ing of certain facts other than such as are
set forth in the information, which in
cludes the senate and house journals, to
which the parties agreed. and reserved the
case for the advice of this court. The
| questions reserved are attended with
serious difficulties. These, as well as the
/ novelty of circumstances recited in the
information, the condition of legisla-
lation as applicable to these circumstances
cscy which the court cannot but feel lest
! it be thought to infringe upon the author
lty belonging to the other coordinate
branches of the government, have led us
to hold the case under deliberation for a
somewhat longer time than is usual. and
require a careful exposition of the princi-
pies upon which the advice TO be given Is
founded.
The case was argued at the bar with
Taa 70 nUNI r.
by the courts departs considerably in form
from the claims made by either side in
their briefs. 1t is believed, however. that
in essential principles there will be found
no real difference between counsel and the
court
The case finds that the respondent, Nor
gan g. Bulkelsy, was legally elected gov
ernor on the 10sh day of January, 1889,
there have been no election by the people)
and entered at once upon the duties %
that Office The term for which he was
elected Was till the "wednesday following
the first Monday of January, 1891, and un-
til his successor was duly qualified If,
then, no successor to him has been chosen,
or bsing chosen, has hot become duly
qualified, the respondent still holds the
Office of governor. He holds that Office
since the said Wednesday in January, 1891,
by the same warrant that held il prior TO
that date and continues to be the de lure
governor of the state 1t is admitted that
no person has been chosen to be the sue
cessor of the respondent, unless the facts
set forth in the case show that the re-
lator has been so chosen; and there is no |
claim but that If chosen he is duly quail |
fed.
The inquiry then is: Has the relator been |
chosen governor according TO the constitu- |
ton and the lawsi The election of a gov
ernor is the selection of some person to fill |
that office. The selection must be of one |
who possesses the required qualifications,
and must be mad, by those who possess /
the right to vote, and at a time, place and |
in the manner prescribed by the law.
The election of state officers in this state
is process. 1t includes the preliminary
registration by which those persons who
have the right to vote are determined the
time when, the place where, and the man
ner in which the votes are to be given
in, and also the manner in which the
votes are TO be counted and the re-
suit made known. Each of these steps
must be taken in pursuance of the law
existing at the time of the election
is had. That part of the election
process which consists of the exer-
else by the voters of their choice is wholly
performed by the electors themselves in
the electors meetings. That part of il is
often spoken of as the election. But IL is
not the whole of the election. The decls-
ration of the result is AN indispensable ad-
Iunct TO that choice; because the declsrA-
tion furnishes the only authentic evidence
of what the cnoice il 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 the whole state, would
be no better than a mockery; 1t would
give the form of choice without the rsali-
ty. The declaration il 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 hiss ex-
pired.
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. The de-
elaration is the only evidence by which the
other departments of the government and
the citizens generally can know whom to
respect as such officers. And in order
that declaration shall be made of the result
of an election for governor in u way to be
obligatory upon everybody the consiiiu-
ton has fixed the time and manner in
which t.'e general assembly shall make
that declaration. Unless the declaration
Is made in ths way $" provided the pro-
cess OF the election is not comniete.
1t is not found in the case that
there had been no declaration by the gem
eral assembly that the relator had been /
elected governor, and it is not claimed that
there has been any equivalent act by any i
other authority. II follows that the rela-
tor-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 well
the de facto governor of the state. II ia
therefore the duty of all citiz@us, of the
courts, of all departments of the state
government and of both houses of the gen.
eral assembly to respect and obey him &C
cordingly.
This, however. is far from deciding the
real question that is reserved for considera-
ton. That real question is this: The re-
iator claimed to bave received s majority |
of all the legal votes for governor at the
electors meetings held on the ith day of
November, 1890. and that he is entitled TO
be declared elected to that Office. Il there
any way known TO the law by which he
can now establish the fact of such a ma
jority and secure his right to the object In /
considering this question, the attention of |
the court has been fixed on a subordi- |
nate one. Is the present gen
eral assembly without the power to |
make any declaration as to the |
election of q governorl 1t is conceived |
/
such power, either because it has become |
impossible for it to do so by reason of the |
attitude of the two houses toward each |
other on that matter, so that as to such a |
declaration the assembly is in the same |
condition that it would be If an adjourn |
ment without day had been taken, beca use |
the time within which the general assem- |
bly, may declare governor to be elected is |
limited by the constitution, and that limit |
is passed as to the present assembly And |
if the general assembly is without the |
power to make such declaration may the |
superior court make an investigation and, |
on finding that the reIator did in fact re- |
ceive a majority of all the votes lawfully |
cast for governor, give him title to that |
object The ground on which the power of |
the assembly to make any declaration re-
specting the governor are supposed to be |
lost will be examined separately, although |
at the risk of some little repetition. That |
part of the constitution which must be |
kept in mind is section 2, article 4:
At the meeting of the electors in the rsspec- |
tive towns n the month of - inmedi tely
after the election OF senator the presiding OH
GERS shall call upon the electors to bring their