The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-05-25
Important Decision as to
Town Elections.
Appellate Court Literally
COnStrueS Statutes.
CharleSt0wn Democrats TO Have
Names on Official Ballots.

Tho Appellate Court today decided that
nations for town officers one year but does
at the state election following cost two
per cent Of the votes cast IL Is entitled
TO have the names OF its candidates for
town officers placed on the official ballot
for the town election following the state
election.
This decision was made on tho appiica
ton OF Joseph y. HOxsie and other voters
for "A writ of mandamus against George
g. Cross, town clerk of Charlestown.
The petitioners were Democratic electors
of the town named and their party failed
last June TO wake any nominations for
town officers. AT the state election held
last April the Democrats OF the town
cast more than two per cent OF the votes
for state officers and for senator and rep
resentative. May IL the Democrats met
In caucus and nominated full quiver OF
candidates The secretary Of tho caucus
applied TO Town Clerk Cross and asked
when was the last day nominations could
DO made and he was informed. Tho same
day Clerk Cross wrote To the caucus sep-
retarY and Informed him that rs the
Democratic party made no nominations
for town officers i'm June. 1895, the names
OF its candidates this year could not 60
upon the official ballot.
made by nomination papers. The local
Democratic committee sent N list of tho
candidates nom mated at the caucus held
the 18th inst, 10 Mr. Cross. lie was still
obdurate so the party committee engaged
John Il. Conley and John Il. Canning as
its counsel and application for writ of
mandamus was made on which citation
WAS issued returnable at 10 O'Clock this
morning.
The case was heard by the full court
and Attorney Conley stated the facts as
already given to the court. He thought
that the case came within that OF Cor
coran vs.. Bennett, secretary of state, de-
cided "A snort time previous TO the April
election, in which the court held that
nominations could DO made by "a party
Tor senator and representatives that had
at the preceding election cast two per
cent of tie votes. even though the party
the previous year had not made nomina-
tions for senator or representatives
Judge Hayes, counsel for Town Clerk
Cross, SAID il was not the desire of his
client 10 interfere with hnyone's political
rights as all that was wanted was n con
structlon of the statute. Counsel argued
that the statutes intended there should
be "a difference between state elections and
town elections and that the words two
per cent OF the vote cast at the preceding
election, applied TO the town or state
election preceding, according as the nom.
inations applied.
Judge Stincss suggested that If the
voters of both parties were thoroughly
satisfied with nominations made and the
candidates were unanimously elected It
might prove hardship II no party but
the one that-had- made the nominations
could in future make nominations.
There were further questions put by
members of the court and Mr.. Hayes in
reply 10 one question said there was a
Democratic party in the town Of Charles.
town for state purposes and rot one for
town purposes. The court intimated that
the case seemed very similar TO that of
Corcoran vs.. Bennett and IL was Of the
opinion that the intention of the Legisla-
ture was that any party that had the re-
quried numb should be entitled To have
the names Of candidates placed upon the
official ballot
Judge Stiness said that the statute
might be clearer and thought it would be
"A good idea TO have II amended. The writ
was granted and the citizens named in
the Democraticc caucus will have the
priyilege of leading "A fOrlOrn hone