The Newtown bee. (Newtown, Conn.) 1877-current, 1902-10-24
600
1900
Ten Pages.
COUNTY.
NEW MILFORD.

q. Barnes in the local town election
dispute came up for hearing, Monday,
in the Superior court before Judge
George w. Wheeler. The interest in
the case was intense, the court room
being crowded the greater part OF the
day. In the audience were a number
of citizens from other towns, including
Former Selectman w. b. Rowe of
Brookfeld, Gilbert Vincent of Kent,
Herman Hoffman of New Preston,
Deputy Sheriff w. G. Allen and DR. ).
N. Woodruff of Sherman and many
others. There was strong array OF
legal talent engaged in the case. At
one end of the tables sat Hon Daniel
Davenport of Bridgeport and" Former
Judge Adds, counsel for Mr. BUCK,
while at the other were Hon Don
Warner. States attorney for Litchtield
county, and Attorney Williams of
New milford Inside the rail sat
Selectman A. G. Barnes and the petit
tiOner in the case, j. L. Buck, Charles
Homer Osborne and H. Q. Warner,
all interested spectators.
The question of opening the ballot
box came up. Judge Wheeler said If
the attorneys for Mr. Buck were willing
to waive their rights in the matter
and have the matter decided on queS-
lions of law, he would not order the
box opened. The attorneys for Mr.
Buck asked to have the box opened'
and Judge Wheeler so ordered. Town
Clerk Noble brought forward the box.
1t was unlocked and the seals broken,
and the count commenced. 1t was not
finished till $50 p. m. The case OF Mr.
Buck was ably brought before the
court by. Attorneys Davenport and
Adds.
Their contention was: That while
Mr. Barnes name was presented first
on the republican ticket and he receiv-
ed 1856 votes, Mr. Buck received 480
votes, standing first on the democratic
ticket. But he also received eight
votes, on republican tickets pasted
over H. II. Pomeroy. Mr. Davenport
claimed that Mr. Buck having received
more votes than Mr. Barnes he was
elected. Because the statute provides
that in all elections for town officers a
plurality of votes elects. And it also
provides, especially in the case of the
office of selectmen, that where there is
minority representation that those
having the highest number of votes
shall be elected. And the statute in
regard to the office of first selectman
says 'Of the persons elected selectmen
that one whose name stands first on
the plurality of the ballots cast shall
be the first selectman." In other
words, there being only three select
men to be elected and four candidates
to be nominated the three highest
were cast for Pomeroy, Richmond and
Buck These were therefore elected
selectmen and Mr. Barnes was defea ted.
Not only the eight votes but the 480
votes should be counted for Mr. Buck.
Attorney Williams received many
compliments for his strong presenta-
ton of Mr. Barnes case. He said in
substance:
The General Statute, Section 1909,
provides that "In all elections of town
officers a plurality of the votes cast
shall be sufficient to elect, unless it is
otherwise expressly provided by law"
Section 1912 provides as to who shall
be "first selectman;" these two stat
utcs are the ones governing the case at
issue and by the plain and wholesome
| II 1,x iol,
struction of all statutes, they are to
be construed together so as not to do
violence to the letter or spirit of either
Section 1902 provides for the election
of "selectmen," mot less than three,
or more than seven" New Milford
sees fit to elect only three. This means
that there are four candidates voted
for, of whom no voter can under the
provisions of the statute as to minority
representation (Section 1870, vote for
more than two. This limited no."
coupled with the fact that, of the two
for whom the individual electOr may
cast his ballot, the one is candidate
for different and distinct office, al
though their names are printed on the
ballots under the same generic title
in what we think are the confused
and mistaken ideas on the subject,
which permeate the claims Of counsel
for the petitioner. That two distinct
offices are voted for under the one
generic term "selectmen" there can
be no question. Such had been the
general belief, on which the inhabit-
ants of the towns of the state had
acted up to the time of the decision in
the case Of Hull VS.. Hillard. ~ Conn.
1853 This case was controversy aris-
ing out of an election for town officers
held at North Stonington in October,
1874. 1t was decided by the March
term of the Supreme court in 1875.
The decision was of course based on
the statutes as they existed at the
time of the election, to wit, prior to
the Revision of 1875. This revision
went into effect January l, 1875. Rev.
1875, Page 500.
The Hull and billiard case was con-
trary to the immemorial belief and
practice of the people of the state and
in effect held that there must be dis
tinct legislative creation of the office
before it could receive judicial recog-
milton. The case must of course be
admitted as authority that prior to
January l, 1875, the office existed in
popular comprehension only. Since
that date there can be no question
that the Office of first selectman has
been stricti juris, a separate and in
dependent office. An Office as fully
hot nf