The Newtown bee. (Newtown, Conn.) 1877-current, 1902-10-24

requires plurality of the votes cast
to elect. That means a plurality of
the votes cast for the particular Office,
or on the particular subject under dis
cussion. Paine on the Law Of Elec-
tions, Section SIS, Page 4s4. Gillespie
VS.. Palmer, 20 Wisconsin, Page 544,
Page 572, in the edition in the Bridge
port Library.
In the last case the court says on
Page 581, "What is the meaning of the
words approved by majority of all
the votes cast at such election three
different constructions we're suggested
on the argument.
l. That it required majority of
all the votes, on all subjects and for
all offices, cast at such election.
2. That it should be majority of
all the voters voting at such election.
3. A majority of all the votes on
that subject cast at such election.
The Court hold the last proposition to
be the correct one.
The discussion is too long to read
uClc UuU VIC COulAJClu IL w JOul
honor's attention. The court defines
the meaning of the term vote thus:
s'The expression of the choice of the
voter for or against any measure, any
law, or the election of any person to
Office.
An instructive case is St Joseph
Township VS.. Rogers, 16 Wall, GA, in
which the Supreme Court of the
United States, on Pages 663 and 664 in
the opinion enunciate closely the same
doctrine. To the same effect are many
other authorities cited by Paine under
Section SIS. A particularly clear legal
definition is given by the Superior
court of New York in People VS..
RIDER, 16 Barbour, 375.
In his argument States Attorney
Warner said in substance: 1t would
not be claimed for single moment
that J. Leroy Buck stood as candi.
date for second selectman. In effect
they say this. First elect your select
men, then decide who is first. What
was the purpose of the statute in this
case. The underlying thought was
that the voter should have the right
to register his choice for first select
man, an office which has existed from
time immemorial. That was the in
tention of the Legislature. 1t is thu
duty of the moderator of the electors
meeting to decide who is elected. MY
friends have petitioned you to declare
by your certificate that Mr., Buck il
elected a selectman. They do not asl
to declare that he is elected frs
selectman. 1t seems that my friend
would decide there is no first select
man. If anything is clear and paten
it is that the voters of New Milford
1000 strong, expressed their choice TO
first selectman. There were eigh
voters who declared that they did no
want J. L. Buck first selectman.
In reply to Attorney Warner, NJ
Davenport said: 1t is safe to say that
the voters of New Milford went to the
polls knowing what the law was
They are presumed to know what tn
Supreme court has said interpreting
these statutes. Because a name j
printed first on the ticket, therefor
the voters, a majority of them, are de
claring that that man shall be frs
selectman. They have really to nullif.
: the action of the Supreme court ant
by piecing together here and Their
are constructing statute for the occa
sion. The gentlemen advance still
more startling propositions. Woul'
it be proper to print ticket Firs
Selectman and selectmen? Such
ticket would be void in my opinion
If the gentlemen of New Milfor,
J should follow this suggestion, I ask i
| they would not invalidate the Who'll
ticket? I think they would. TIL
) voters of New Milford were invited t.
fill the offices of selectmen. The tw
} parties met and named two men eacl
and the electors registered their choice
The law steps in and says who ar
elected. The law says: Those VIII
have plurality of votes shall be elect
ed. That man who stands first on
plurality of ballots is elected. 1t
idle to argue about d matter which
to be interpreted by the statute an
in the light of common sense.
! Judge Wheeler reserved his decision