The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1893-04-21
SOUTH K|NGSTONN CASE.
ATTORNEY BOSWsrth Objects to tht
MandamuS and Gives Reasons.
THE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The Law Repealed by the Amendment of
1s01-Lawyer Brown Makes General
Denial Of, These Charges The Court
Takes Papers and withholds Decision.

The allied forces at the South Kings.
town town council and the hostile Dem
ocra's met in death grapple before the
supreme court. represented by Justices
Matteson, Stiness and Douglas, at $3.50
o'clock yesterday afternoon TO decide
what should be done about the election
affair that has driven sleep from the pill
low OF the Democratic party ever since
the independent little t,wn failed TO
hold n reelection.
The strife was fierce between the at
torneys who represented the respective
sides in the co test, the Democrats TO
iorce the matter TO an immediate issue
and the town council To s ay the pro-
ceedings until Saturday. Attorney Bos-
worth, represen ink the town council,
made n heroic fl rt TO induce the court
to defer the hearing OF the mand mus
until he could collect his ANN uni ion
and train his gus upon the
enemy in proper I ,rn. He stated TO the
court that he had dra up demurrer
wien ne would present on Saturday IN
to the mandamus.
The court, alter some deliberation in
which IL was treated TO a hot display of
fireworks from the opposing attorneys
decided that Mr.. Bosworth could bring
up his objections as the hearing pro-
lay.
The battle was then opened. Attorney
Boswortb, fortified with half "A dozen
legal tones. proceeded to make knowp
his demurrer. He set forth
Three Primary Reasons
why he believed tnat the mandamus
should be uuashed First. he said,
the writ instructs the officers
of the town OF South Kin gstown to do
that which they nave no legal right tn
do. section 13. chapter o, requires that
notice OF election shall re poste seven
days before the date of such election and
as the time within which such AN elec-
tirn could be held expired April "a, there
was not sufficient time TO observe the
law la regard TO posting the nJtIce.
The second and third objections to the
mandanus were based upon he assump-
tiol that section Is chapter 40 is uncon-
stitutional, his reason for so holding
being that 923 OF the Public Statutes,
VIII ch requires that the second election
in tue towns of the state shall b. held
~ ithIn hree day, after the first elec
takes precedence OF and inyallda es chap
ter 7l0 OF se:tion is The act was passed
In 1888, three years prior to the three-day
law.
The fourth obj ction to the manda-
mus wa "a generai drniai of the sufii.
cheney of the Gu &c for m indamus
During the presentation OF the de-
murrer Attorney Brown was detet ted in
the act of saying "bosh" under his
orea n, but the mn, a' m nj the
c)n pleted he sprang to his feet
and made vigorous attack
upon the va idity of his brother lawyers
objections rhe law 10y which the oppo-
tion sought 10 repeal the az of 1883
was not passed in 1891 but
In ucE r.Ia
cally TO the town of Hopkinton,
ana can OF he construed as repeating an
act relating to the district of Narragan-
sett 1: it had been passed for the bene-
fit of the Narragansett district il would
so have stated in the title. 1t was
simply an Amendment
to the general law. The law was passed
in 1872 The Kingstown act came later.
Chapter 9s3 was brought about by the
objection of the people, of Hopkinton to
voting on Saturday. The own
does not come under the pro-
visions of ch pter 923 because
1t is not divided up INTO districts for the
purpose of elect!ng senator, representa-
tive and members of the town council,
Each district has in effect separate
town council of its owa"
Mr.. Brown held that il the argu rent
of the opposing attorney should hol 1t
would seriously I'M nerfere with he city
of Pawtucket aud wou d prevent it from
ordering new eiectioa after three days.
Wsous cket ana Newport would be
similarly handicapped
Mr.. Bosworth contended that the act
was not specifically confined To the town
of Hopkinton. IL includes everything
except the city of Providence The town
OF South Kingstown will not 20 unrep-
resented. He repeated his assertion
tnat tie amendment passed in 1891
and not the act of 1872 was the law in
question, aud that it does effectually re-
peal the Narraga ise t charter.
At the conclusion OF the argument the
court took the papers under advisemeut
and eSerYed its decIsinn