The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1892-12-21
.PAWTUCKET'S ELECTION
The RESPONDENTS Demurrer to the
Petition Heard This Morning.
CITY CHARTER DOESN'T SPECIFY
In How short Time an Election Shall
BE CaIIed-Caa the Court Interfere In
4. Matter which il Left TO the Discre-
tion of the Board of Aldermen?

The petition OF Edward OBrien ana
Others for writ OF mandamus to issue
against the Board of Aldermen of the
city of Pawtucket came up for hearing
in the Supreme Court this morning on
the respondents demurrer. This
Is the petition filed by the
Democratic candidates for the CITY
Council in the Second ward OF Paw
tucket praying that the Board Of Alder
men be directed TO call another election in
that ward within reasonable time, or
before the first Wednesday of April next,
which date mas been assigned by the
board for said election. Attorneys Claude
i Fnrnsworth aud Tho w. Robinson
appeared for the petitioners aud arnold
Greene, James L. jerks and City
Solicitor Barnheld OF Pawtucket LOT
dressed tle court. and claimed that
there were buC t'o complaints
stated In the petition, that the candidates
for Office were deprived or thelr rights,
and that the citiz 'us of the Second ward
could not express themselves AT the Polls
He claimed that the candidates had no
rights as such which they did not have
ia common with the other citizens OF that
ward So that the only question IN the
case was: Have the rights of the citizehs
of the Second Ward been violated
IL not Appearing in the petition that
the Board OF Aldermen hau any power 70
call an election, by provision OF the city
charter, the petitioners were allowed TO
amend their petition.
Mr.. jerks then continued. claiming
that even in view OF the amendment
The petition does not show any action
upon the part OF the Board OF Aldermen,
Tor The city charter does not set forth any
specific time Tor the calling or another
eiecton.
section 16. clause 9, Of the charter
SAWS that ia case of any failure TO elect,
etc. the Board OF Aldermen shall order
the city clerk to issue his warrant Tor
another election, aud In case OF failure
10 elect at the second trial the Board Of
Aldermen shall call other elections from
time to time ia like manner. There is,
therefore. 10 hing in the charter upon
which the electors base their rights To an
election within specified time.
The petition does not say simply, that
the time set for the next election Is an
unreasonab BILE time, but asks the court TO
set "A date for the election, "A matter in
which. by the authority of the city char
ter. the Board is allowed To use Its own
discretion.
The petitioners argued that the courts
have b fore ruled that the item OF ex-
pense shall not enter into case or this
kind and as that was the principal rea-
son given at the time for putting OF the
election il should be omitted In the con-
sideration OF this case.
The petitioners argued, and cited
authorities TO show, tnat the general
tenor OF legislation in this state has been
for speedy elections. They also argued
that the principal legislati 'n enacted IN
The Pawtucket City Council was enacted
during the first two or three months of
the year. That is the time when the city
officers are elected, and approprla
Ito S made for the various departments
of the city. BY calling this election the
first Wednesday in April the citizens OF
the Second ward are deprived OF any
voice ia these matters, IL was doubtful
il the board had not actually refused to
order another election, rs the election
they had ordered W ould come Oft aftel
the expiration of their term OF Office.
An Illinois case Was cited where the
town council deferred a certain election
Tor nearly "A year, in wnicn the cour
iol ID tnat tue effect was TO deprive the
u, ople Of their rights, and that the elec
tion should have been called within ;
month.
The court took the papers and held th'
matter for adyiseiftent.