Pawtucket tribune. (Pawtucket, R.I.) 1890-189?, 1893-06-24
PLEAS MADE TODAY.
Second Ward Matter Be-
fore the Court.
BRIEFS ARE SUBMITTED.
Full Text of the Argument For an
Early Election.

Chief Justise Matteson and Judges TIL
linghast and Stiness, the counsel for the
Second Ward petitioners and also for the
city submitted their briefs in the case.
The petition for the relators was pre-
sented by Hon. Thomas w. Robinson
while that for the respondents was put In
by City Solicitor Barnefield.
q. j. Farnsworth, Esq, one of the
counsel for the relators, made forcibIe,
convincing plea, and MIR. Barnefield
pleaded for the respondents.
The court took the papers as usual and
reserved its decision.
Below is the full text OF the REALTORS
brief:
This is a petition for a mandamus to
compel the Mayor and Board of Alder
men OF the City Of Pawtucket to order an
election for one Alderman, three Council
men and ward clerk for the year ending
on the first Monday of January, 1894, for
the Second Ward Of said Pawtucket.
The regular election of City and Ward
officers for said city were held on the End
day OF November, 1882. In the Second
Ward there was no election Of Alderman,
Councilmen, Warden and Clerk.
The Board of Aldermen then ordered
another election for the 8th day of De-
cember, 1892, and there being lao choice on
that date they refused to call an election
at once within the proper time, but IN
stead called one for the first Wednesday In
April, 1893. The candidates on the regular
Democratic ticket brought petition for
a mandamus in the October term, 1892, of
this Court to compel the Board OF Al1er-
men to call an election In said ward with
In a reasonable time. The petitioners
claimed that the postponement Of the
election for about six months was an un-
reasonable time, was an unreasonable ex-
ercise OF the functions of the Board of
Aldermen. The petition was dismissed
upon the ground that 1t was brought In
the name OF the candidates afore-
said and not In the name OF
the Attorney General. Acting
on advice, however the Board Of Alder
men rescinded its action Immediately af.
ter the decision OF the Court and ordered
an election to he held In said ward on the
End day OF January, 1893. They had thus
far delayed an election and IL was an ac-
tion intended for delay and vexations.
Upon the second trial to elect there was
no choice. The Board of Aldermen then
refused to order another election, but In
stead ordered one for one month there
after. And the said Board of Aldermen
for several successive times continued to
order elections In said ward at intervals
of one month although requested to or
dered them sooner. There was no elec-
tion OF any of said officers until the last
election which was held on the 7th day OF
June, 1893, when warden was elected by
majority of 10 votes. The votes were
counted by the Board of Aldermen on the
same day and said Board then ordered a
new election to take place as far removed
as November z, 1893, six months from the
last day OF election. At every one of he
elections great interest was manifested
and full vote was pOlIed.
The REALTORS contend that these post
ponements were for delay, and mention
the fact that James ii. Winters, one of
the Aldermen, was a candidate for re-
election and voted to make as much delay
as possible.
When the last action was taken order
ing an election to be held not sooner than
November 1893, a protest was made by
some OF the Aldermen and the City Solicit
tor said the delay was unreasonable. A
majority however voted not to have
another election until said 7th day of
November.
POINTS.
First-The delay is uncalled for, unrea-
sonable and unjust.
Second-Section 10, clause 2 OF the City
Charter says "in case of failure to elect
any officer under the provisions OF the
charter, the Board of Aldermen shall or
der the City Clerk to issue his warrant for
another election to fiil the vacancy, and
so on from time to time until said offices
shall be filed"
Third-The trend of legislation I'm this
State has been in favor of elections by the
people at the earliest opportunity. See
Public Statutes and the charters of the
several cities.
Fourth-When statute which provides
for the time when an election should be
held is not specific tho statute should be
mn nat VrIa NJ In n xstlt h.
tenor OF the legislation of the State, which
favors the earliest opportunity for the
people to vote, not In hindrance of their
rights nor In derogation of them. See
commonwealth vs.. Evans 102 Penn, State
394.
Fifth The matter of expense is not to
be considered. The only question IL
whether by wicked connfvapce, or igno-
rant reasoning, or stubborn refusal to call
an election, section of the city IL to be
deprived of its rights. The election of
the relators or their defeat may mean a
great deal to the city. The action of the
respondents results In retaining officials
In power who have not been renominated
by any party.
Sixth-"When Il was necessary to hold
an election and the Council had no dis
cretion to refuse to call one, 1t was held
that II the Council unreasonably post
poned the time for holding the same, the
Couhtb Will CoibPoi tutt 10 uO tntlI uuty
In this respect" See village Of Glencoe
vs.. People, IS Ill, 1872.
Seventh-When the statute impose the
duty Of calling an election, the perfor-
nance OF this duty cannot be refused on
the ground of expense. Gibbs vs.. Bart
lett, CAL, III.
Eight-When discreet tionary power IL
given to a particular body II can be 70.
viewed In the case OF gross and unwar-
ranted abuse Of power OF exercise OF dis
cretion. Glencoe w. People. 7S ILL.,, 3s2;
State vs.. Railway, 80 N. j., 410; People VS..
Common Council. ~ N. ", 503-512; Dillon
Nun. Corp, vol. 2, 676-6, s32, $50; Paine
on Elections, 363 ,3S N. j., Law 10.
Ninth--If there IL unreasonable delay on
the part OF the respondents OF an unrea.
soGable delay caused by them, mandsmus
lies 10 compel them TO act differently.
Clevela nd VS.. Board of Finance, 3S N. j.,
Law $50. IL has also been held that man
damus shall be issued when discretionary
power has been 80 abused that injustice
will result from the act complained Of.
Troop vs.. Public Officers, Bee. s22; Bro
ksw vs.. Com. OF Highways, 100 III, 1872;
Glencoe vs.. People 7s Ill, 3S2.
Tenth-(rhe respondent Winters Is
holding over In his Office. He voted upon
his qucstioD). Discretionary power may
be reviewed when q body has violated