Waterbury Democrat., 1901-12-11

,,,x, o,,cxyarS q member of the repuDll- con town committee called the att@li- ion of Judga Cowell and his counsel to inc ballots used by both the repllp- lican party and the democratic party in avery ward of the city at the elec. ton in question. It was demonstrates that upon every ballot cast, so Tar as it was possible to ascertain, the Wofds first ward" second ward, thlfd ward.'' fourth ward and hilh ward'' had been printed under the party name. It was learned that there had been some discussion between the chairmen of the two political town committees as to the propriety of m sertin@ these words, and that it had finally been agreed between them that these words should be printed upon the ballots according to custom siaee the passage of the secret ballot law. and because experience had shown that it was very desirable that there should be some mark on the ballots to distinguish those of one ward from those of another. While this agree ment manifestly removed any founda- ton to claim any fraudulent intent Ill the use of these words, nevertheless, in the opinion of Judge Cowell and his counsel, the presence of these words was a violation of the first section of inc existing secret ballot law. The same reasoning which would make I ballot illegal because the word ''for' was printed upon it would make inc ballot illegal if any other words ap- peared on them. This section of the election law distinctly prescribes that no ballot shall contain either the worls for or the or any other word be- fore or after the name of the party" The supreme court has held that this section must be strictly interpreted, and that it is not for the courts to say whether the presence of such words on a ballot indicates fraud or not + it is there, the ballot violates the require ments of this section and is illegal
 ''Inasmuch, therefore, as these words appeared on all ballots cast by the democrats and republicans at the alec- tion. it follows that no legal ballots were cast for anyone. There were no other candidates or party which had tickets out in this election which could be regarded as issued by any recog- nized party. It is apparent then in the first place that Judge Cowell could not establish that he had majority of the legal votes cast at this election. and therefore that the court, upon bis
 
 eral statutes could not find that he ilad been legally elected to the office of mayor. What other errors there may have been i'll the democratic ballots cast i'll the third and fourth wards. the absence of any legal ballot cast for Judge Cowell in any ward of the city would. of course, remove the fOunda- ton of his claim to the office
 Now. while it is apparent in the cir cumstances that Judge Cowell could not obtain the office for himself, if he should pursue his application, the judge of the superior court might possi- bly, find that neither AIr Kilduff nor Judge Cowell. nor any other candidate for office in this election had been legally elected, and that i'll that case it might become necessary to hold q sDe- cial election. which would occasion much trouble and expense. The cost to the city would be $5.0O0 or $6.OOO Although there is evidence to show that some ballots in the third and marked as to indicate who might have cast them, and many of Judge Cowrlrs friends believe that that was the case it was not deemed wise or sensible to pursue his application when it became apparent that he could not succeed himself, and that the only result must necessarily be either that Mir Kilduff would retain his office as 'h0ldoyer' or that there would be another costly city election. the result of which would be quite as likely to favor Mir Kilduff Judge Cowell has repeatedly stated that he did not seek the office for per sonal reasons. and that he has brought this application as . representative of