Waterbury Democrat., 1902-11-28

5J. are not those involved in this case yet as one of the other questions here presented is whether the ballots cast for the applicant shall be declared Vold fer the reason that the applicant not being the regular nominee or the demo- cratic party and therefore the ballots containing his name were not issued by that party, tie ease cited may serve as , guide for the determination Of the questions here raised
 It appears that from the evidence that the applicant was nominated as a candidate for the office of registrar or voters by a party convention regularly called by the democratic town commit tee of Waterbury. The delegates to the convention were chosen by the registered democratic electors at pri- maries in which presumably only those who were duly qualified so to do par ticipated This convention made cer- tain nominations for town officers which were admitted to be the regular nominees of the party for those offices. Indeed. all the acts of the convention were admittedly regular under the ugages and rules of the party other than it's action resembling the then ex- isting rule relating tc the nomination Of a candidate for registrar of voters and placing in nomination for that of flee the applicant
 The ballots containing the name of the applicant, it is urged, are not demo- cratic ballots. were not issued by the democratic party. and the use of the word democratic on these ballots under the circumstances was a kind of fraud or imposition upon the voters and they are therefore invalid
 The acts of 2 political party, CT of an individual, or any number of persons acting in concert, nominating candi- date or announcing g candidate. and placing ballots containing the names of the persons nominated before the voters to be used in an election consti- tutes the issuing of ballot. Both the eases of Talcott vs Philbrlck, g Conn, 4S0, and Fields ys Osborne, 60 Conn. 547, sustain this proposition. There fore the validity of the ballots in this case is to be determined in the light of all the circumstances surrounding the nomination of the applicant and plac- ing his name before the voters upon the ballots.
 Unless a ballot comes clearly within the prohibition of some statute it 
 or the will of the voter can be ascer. tained. State vs Bossa. 69 Conn 335. This principle ought. 10 he universally anplied 10 preserve the freedom of the voter and the question then is. do these ballots come clearly within the pro hibition of the statute as not contain ing the name of the party issuing them?
 To decide this question in favor of the respondents contention necessi- tates an investigation of the rules. usages and customs of a particular political party and their effect rpor q party convention in the town of Wa terbury also judicial determination that those rules are binding upon the party in all it's deliberations and con ventinns. and, further if any number of adherents of and believers in the doctrines of that party meet and nom- mate candidates for office and place the name of the political party which they claim to represent upon the bal lot containing these no1ninations. such ballots shall be void. unless the rules and rsages of the party have been sub- stantialIy followed and observed in making such rnmination.
 A proper construction of the statute, section 1882. does not clearly require such ruling It would place restric- tions upon the individual voter sub- versive of his freedom and indepen- dence.
 It is not necessary for the purposes l of this case to hold that any number of voters. however small. may make lnominations and fssue ballots and nlace 1 lthornon the name of a political nartv without a shadow If ri9ht to.. 11se tl'e party name. Nor should the construc: