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

OAAAO--N~-O~
Revision of 1888, Section 48, and now
appear without change of language as
Section 1872 in the present General
Statutes. These two statutory pro-
visions. now as we have seen united in
one, are construed by the Supreme
court in the case of Brown VS.. Blake.
(46 Conn. $40 The language of the
opinion on Pages $50 and 551 is par
ticularly in point here, and fully sus-
tains our claim that the Office of First
Selectman is distinct and independ-
ent office, the incumbent of which
'performs more labor and receives
more pay than any one of his associ-
ates." Every one knows that the
caucus of each political party NOM
mates a candidate for first selectman,
and when it comes to casting the Of
fetal ballots, the fact that he is a
candidate for that particular Office is
made clear, both as practical measure
and legally, by the fact that such can
didate's name appears first on the
ticket, under the generic heading,
Selectmen.
While we contend that our position
was plainly established as correct prior
to the decision of the case of Mallett
VS.. Plumb, decided in 1891, and found
solutely confident that since that case
there can be no doubt about it. The
statute in question is not artifcially
drawn, and was susceptible of two
meanings; one meaning was adopted
by the judge of the Superior court who
heard that; another meaning was
found by the Supreme court to be the
correct one. Under either view our
contention is upheld, for Mr. Pomeroy,
the associate of Mr. Barnes on the re-
publican ticket, received 500 votes,
while no other candidate for selectman
had as many.
From this it appears that the pre-
else point claimed by the petitioner in
that case, i. e., the claim that ballots
cast for Plumb in secondIplace had been
improperly counted for him for first
selectman. True, Mallett makes this
allegation, as appears from Page 354,
but it appears on Page $50 that no
evidence was offered in support of this
allegation. But it seems to be con-
coded that had he proved this allega-
tion he would have been successful
We make the allegation and prove it.
fl,n
election of town officers just held in
this town, there were two men, and
two only, who were, or legally could be,
either voted for or elected to the office
in question; these were the petitioner
and the respondent. The petitioner
received 48O votes for the office, the
respondent received 1856; he had a
plurality of the votes cast for the Of
fee, he was elected, and he was duly
and properly declared, elected. Eight
electors of the town, who in the main
did desire to vote the ticket on which
the name Of Mr. Pomeroy appeared, to
wit, the republican ticket, did not de-
sire to vote for Mr. Pomeroy for select
man. They accordingly exercised
their legal right to erase his name
from the ticket: and put in place of it
the name of Mr. Buck, the petitioner.
These eight men did not vote for Mr.
Buck for the Office of first selectman,
but under certain circumstances these
eight votes might have had an i'm
portant and determining effect on the
election, i. e., if either Mr. Pomeroy or
Mr. Richmond had received less votes
than Mr. Buck one of them would have
been defeated. Mr. Barnes would still
have been first selectman. Mr. Buck
might have been selectman, in place
of Mr. Richmond or Mr. Pomeroy; the
only trouble was he did not get votes
enough, for Mr. Richmond received 1914
for the office of selectman and Mr.
POmeroy received 800. There are none
50 blind as those who won't see, and
my friends apparently either cannot
or will not see the plain truth and
recognize the automatic fact, that
while the greater includes the less,
the less does not, never will and never
can include the greater; or to put the
same thing in other language: A vote
for a man for "frst selectman" in
cludes vote for him for "selectman,"
but a vote for him for "selectman"
does not include vote for him for
"irst selectman."
To ask your honor to say that 485
voters of New Milford who in legal
way expressed their will to have Mr.
Barnes for first selectman shall have
their suffrage set aside, because 49O
voters wished Mr. Buck chosen to the
same place, would be proposition too
bold and bare faced to be entertained