Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-04-20

provisions were comparatively few and
 simple and for the most part were con-
 cerned with the machinery and method
 for the convenient and orderly expres-
 sion of the will of the voters as they
 should choose to express and saIe-
 guarding the result as expressed. VT late legislation has sought not only No
 register and safeguard the will of the
 voters as expressed but, as Tar as possible, to secure an e1- pression which should represent the | true will of the voters unaffected by
 corruption, intimidation, undue in
 fuence or deception. Such an attempt
 necessarily involves many command
 ments whose thou shalts' and thou
 shalt nots' multiply into more or less
 complicated system. These command
 ments to be effective involve penalties
 which oftentimes can only be imposed
 by rejection of ballots. The rejection
 of ballots ordinarily signifies the dis
 franchisement Of the voters whose bal 1 lots they are. Circumstances may jus-
 tify this disfranchisement as neces-
 sary incident of an attempt to obtain
 an honest and true expression of the
 popular will. The danger of such a
 system. however, is that the disfran-
 chisement will extend to the honest voter honestly attempting to exert his l influence upon the election result
 When such a result is accomplished grievous wrong is done to the citizen
 whose right is taken away; when it is
 done to any great extent the system is
 put in serious Jeopardy of being so
 used as to defeat it's real ends. Stat
 utes are to be interpreted and applied
 with regard for the purposes which they are intended to accomplish and the evils they are intended to avert. i There is no kind of legislation under a popular government to which this pr1n-
 cipIe should be more consistently ap- piled that that which seeks to regulate
 the exercise of the right of suffrage. If
 there is to be disfranchisement it
 should be because the legislature has
 seen fit to require it in the interest of
 an honest suffrage and has expressed l that requirement in unmistakable lan- guage. 1t should not result from
 doubtful judicial construction, from a too strict regard for the mere letter of
 the statutes or from resort to nice or technical refinements in either inter- pretation or application. State v I Bossa, 69 Conn, 335.
 .l If we look at the situation disclosed by the record, 1t is apparent that the
 ballots cast for the petitioner were is- sued and cast in good faith and with no intent to violate either the letter or
 the spirit of the law. The refusal of
 the party chairman to recognize him as
 the party candidate compelled him to either tamely submit or do precisely as
 he did. The law made no provision for the timely settlement of the. dis lpute. He made use of the party des-
 ignation under a claim of right and with a color of right. He was not a a self-named nominee; he was not the
 nominee of self-appointed committee
 or of a faction or gathering which ]. could have no claim to any party desig- nation; he was not the nominee or pretended nominee of some party or
 ganiZation which had no right to the
 democratic name. He was placed in
 nomination by the regular democratic
 convention composed of delegates reg
 u1arly chosen at the regular democratic
 primaries of the enrolled democratic
 voters of the town. His right what ever 1t was, came from unQuestioned Edenlocratic sources His claim was N. founded upon the action of the organi-
 zation of the democratic party. To say
 that under such circumstances he had
 no alternative but to yield to the de cision of the party chairman and that : his assertion without the chairman's s consent and in the only way open to him of his claim to the benefit of a nomination which he contended that : he had rightfully received was in viola tion of law and rendered invalid every straight ballot cast for him is to con- hI &1nT16 fNYe vsSrN rSw,1@ y which might easily lead to results which would subversive of the very purpose of the election system.
 It may be that the petitioners claim . to the nomination was not technically sound 1t may be that respondent had ! a better right to have his name appear upon the party ticket We have no } need to decide the question. All that 1t is necessary to say is that under the [ circumstances the petitioner was fully l Justified in carrying his contention to the polls in the manner he did. This 2 was :, factional dispute within Enc party organization. Such are bound to ! arise. They may relate to the regu. l llarity of party organization or party l action, or, as in this case, party nom . ina ton. There fs no machinery pro vided my our law, whether judicial ol otherwise to make settlement or al g least timely settlement of many o1 them. The verdict of the voter must B for the most part sooner or later e decide the controversy Meanwhile there is no law which directs that one 7 who fairly and in good faith asserts al ,. the polls by the use of the party name his claim to party regularity or a party F termination, if that claim is, made . honestly and upon a areasonable founda ' tion of fact, does so at the peril of dis ( franchisement for himself and his sup 3 porters if moderator or in the rf1na | event a court fails to confirm his con | 4o~ | gs#