New-York tribune., 1905-11-28
CONNECTICUT
LAWYERS BACK JUDGE.
Senator NcGoUern in Peculiar Posi-
ton OUer Salary BiU.

New Haven, Nov. q (SpeciaD.-Wlde discuss
sion has followed the decision on the Judges sal
ary matter by Judge Reed in Hartford last week
and the CONSEQUENT position in which Senator
McCovern. the plaintiff finds himself, whereby
he is unable to build his argument on the nn-
constitutionality of the act. Two three sets
of oninio1s have been advanced in regard to this
necr1iar and unfortunate condition. 1t has been
claimed that the State. through the Attorney
Generals office. has merely raised technlcahtles
in order to contest the complaint, ana IN Iild'
wav has taken sides with the legislature III lolo-
ing the adoption of higher salaries in the Iace Oh
the constitution. 1t has also been said tnat II
has been the real purpose of the pIailIlll on
along 10 carry the matter in the courts uhlii 'I7
next legislature. when the Dill shouAo Oe
pealed.
p,,+ 70 qreat noany Connecticut lawyers who
,a,,a becoroe interested in the case on it's public
side neither of these suggestions appeals IN the
slightest The decision by Judge Reed, by whlch
he threw out the gist Of the complaint OF seil@-
tor McGovern by refusing to permit iegai COLL
cIusion to be set up in the complaint Is sup
ported widely by experienced jur1sts, ana Is re-
ceiving only the strongest backing in the legal
fraternity The Attorney Generals ONCE Is
likewise supported by the generality OF the par
and the burden Of criticism for the present con-
dition of the Judges salary bill is falling on the
brought their complaint. It is being said that
'the unfortunate situation to quote one OF
several lawyers who have written to the Trio-
me correspondent in regard to the matter) IN
which the plaintiff finds himself is not through
the fault of the judge, but through the fault OF
the method of procedure by Senator McGovern'
Says this lawyer:
Where a court is so emphatically and clearly
correct in its decision, as was Judge Reeo IN Ia
this case, 1 think it would be unfortunate Iof
the laity not to understand exactly the sltua-
ton. No principle of law is any more thorousH-
Iy established than that legal conclusions snail
not be set UP in a complaint or IN answer
thereto.
The object of the statute was doubtless to raise
the consttutionality of the act OF the legislature
and not to collect damages from any one An
injunction is statute purely to protect d parry
from impending damage. While there is tecnnl-
cal damage in this suit, it is purely techhlcal
and of a: quasi public nature, and it is very
doubtful to my mind If it would be reached py
injunction. The plaintiff certainly did not nave
the right to set UP in his complaint any legal
conclusions 1t would be very foolish on the
part OF any man to opine offhand the exact pro-
cedure which ought to be followed, but without
special investigation 1t would occur TO me tnal
if the plaintiff, instead of bringing an inJuLc-
ton, had brought suit in quo warranto the de-
fendant or defendants would necessarily hate t
set up in answer the statute in question: to
which answer the plaintiff would nave de-
INJURED the ground of unconstitutlonailty OF
the statute set up in answer, which would nave
brought the point clearly and fatty before the
tribunal.
Had such procedure as this been carried
out it is more than probable that the present
situation would not have materialized. Ihe
judges salary question, accompanied as 1t mas
been by widespread dissatisfaction, and. indeed.
humiliation that such a question should arise
and that such increase should be ordered oy
an Assembly in the face of rigid constitutional
provision to the contrary, has been one OF the
most unfortunate situations Connecticut has
had to face in recent years. 1t should never
have been passed by the legislature in the first
place, and when it was brought to trial the way
should at once have been paved for direct ap-
peal to the constitution. The matter OF the
Injunction brought by Judge Stoughton for Sen
ator McGovern, to restrain the Controller ana
State Treasurer from paying the increased sal
aries has also been considered a false step
The Attorney General is said to have requested
Judge Stoughton to withdraw his injunction,
pledging his word that the increase would not
be paid until the constitutionality of the law
was determined by the courts, but Judge
StoughtOn would not consider the proposition.
AS the matter stands the plaintiff will have
to amend his complaint this week and state
more clearly what damages he would suffer were
the increase to be paid. 1t is stated that Sen
ator McGovern, besides his poll tax of 81 a
year, may set up that he would be damaged in
that he is a large owner of insurance stock In
Hartford. All this is, of course, aside from
the main question at issue, which has been from
the first the legal right of the legislature to pass
the increase bill in the face of the constitution.