CONNECTICUT. 



pel tin- Mitriiilance of absent members. For the 

 ne\t two days the few Republicans forming tin- 

 regular Mouse met at one hour, and the Derao- 

 1 louse, uinli-r I ho leadership of Represent- 

 aii\e Walker, at another hour. On the second 

 day I lie latter body passed u resolution declar- 

 ing tl't' salaries of all the absent Republicans 

 forfeited. On Friday, Feb. 5, both factions met 

 together, and the Democrats soon gave up their 

 attempt to maintain I heir rival organization. 

 The Bouse adjourned from day to day till Feb. 

 !t, when nearly all the Republican members were 

 again in their seats. On that day the rules were 

 amended so as to give the Speaker authority, in 

 the absence of a quorum, to adjourn the House 

 for not more than two months at a time. The 

 eonference committee above mentioned reported 

 at this time against concurrence with the Senate 

 in its resolution declaring the election of John 

 .1. I'lielan. The report, after reviewing the in- 

 vestigations of the committee, declared that it 

 was apparent, all things considered, that Mr. 

 I'lielan lacked 77 votes of a majority, and that 

 the declaration of his election would be against 

 reason, justice, and precedent. The House ac- 

 cordingly voted to reject the Senate resolution, 

 and also rejected Senate resolutions declaring 

 the election of Luzon B. Morris, Joseph W. Al- 

 sop, and Marvin H. Sanger. After passing a 

 bill appropriating $50,000 for the World's Co- 

 lumbian Exposition at Chicago, the House then 

 adjourned to May 3. 



Meanwhile the Senate, after meeting on Feb. 

 3, adjourned from day to day till Feb. 11, its 

 most important action being the passage of the 

 above-mentioned resolutions declaring the elec- 

 tion of Morris, Alsop, and Sanger. On the lat- 

 ter day it adjourned to May 2. Successive ad- 

 journments were then made from May 3 to June 

 27, from June 27 to Sept. 27, and from Sept. 27 

 till after the November election. The House ad- 

 iourned from May 3 to Sept. 27, and from the 

 latter date till November. 



As the House, on Feb. 9, had definitely refused 

 to declare the election of Mr. Phelan to the office 

 of Secretary of State, the latter again turned to 

 the courts for a determination of his rights. His 

 counsel, on Feb. 12, filed an amended complaint 

 in the case of Phelan vs. Walsh, begun in the pre- 

 ccding year, in which it was claimed that each 

 I louse of the General Assembly had now declared 

 its position, that neither could now legally take 

 any further action, and that the court must de- 

 termine the questions at issue. On Feb. 18 a simi- 

 lar amended complaint was filed in the case of 

 Marvin II. Sanger tw. E.Stevens Henry, in which 

 title to the office of State Treasurer was at issue. 



A demurrer was filed by the defendant in the 

 case of Phelan vs. Walsh, which was overruled on 

 April 7, and the trial of the case on its merits be- 

 gan early in May. In the course of the hearing 

 it became necessary 'o summon and hear the tes- 

 timony of the town clerk and election officers of 

 <-\ery town in the State. Nearly a month was 

 consumed in this work, and not until late in July 

 w.is Judge Mall, of the Superior Court, who hearo! 

 the ea-e, al)lo to report his findings. Me reported 

 that Mr. I'lielan had received a majority of 420 

 votes over all candidates, provided he had de- 

 cided correctly certain legal questions raised at 

 the trial, all of which he reported to the State 



Supreme Court for final decision. Arguments 

 were heard by the latter tribunal on Sept. 1, and 

 a decision was rendered late in that month. The 

 court, in the course of a long opinion, said : 



We propone to coupler first those questions involv- 

 ing the construction lit' the net of ls.v.i, relutiii;/ to elec- 

 tions, known iw the " Si <-n -t-tiallot act," Two con- 

 sidera'ions have had weight with un in adopting thU 

 : First, the construction of Unit act is <>f imme- 

 diate practical importance in view of the approaching 

 elections; and tin-re is a general desire that tfioseque*- 

 tions should be authoritative] \ determined ut an early 

 day ; and if the court should hold that it ha.- no juris 

 diction of these ease.> then- mi^ht he some impropri- 

 ety in proceeding to discuss and determine minor ques- 

 tions involved ; secondly, if the views taken of th<fe 

 questions shall lead to the conclusion that it is ni 

 shown that any one has a majority of all th 

 legally cast at the election in 1890 for either of the 

 office in dispute both cases will be practically disposed 

 of bv the facts, and must necessarily be dismissed, and 

 we snail be relieved of the necessity of considering anil 

 determining some grave questions of constitution:!! 

 law. In taking this course we assume for the pur 

 poses of these cases that the court has jurisdiction, at 

 least to the extent of inquiring into and determining 

 the facts of the cases, whatever may be said as to the 

 power of the court, in a certain contingency, and in 

 the present state of things, to apply a remedy. We 

 therefore pass by, without discussion, the questions : 

 1. Whether the General Assembly lost its power to de- 

 clare the result of the election on the second day of its 

 session : 2, if not, whether, since that day, from any 

 cause whatever, it has lost that power; ana, 3, whether 

 in any event the courts have, or can have, under tin- 

 Constitution any jurisdiction over that mutter. We 

 purposely refrain from expressing any opinion upon 

 any one of these questions, and wish to nave it dis- 

 tinctly understood that they remain open questions. 



The first step in ascertaining whether the relator re- 

 ceived a majority is to ascertain the whole number of 

 votes cast The returns, as made to the board of can- 

 vassers, show the whole number of votes counted. 

 With these returns, which for convenience' sake we 

 will call the constitutional returns, the statute rt-uuin-s 

 certain other returns to be made, which we will call 

 the statutory returns. 



It appears from the statutory returns that there were 

 eleven tmllota in the town of Branford and one ballot 

 in each of the towns of Hartford and Middletown 

 which were rejected, and the reason for such rejection 

 does not appear in the returns of the presiding officers, 

 and did not appear in the evidence before the court 

 The court therefore held that such ballots could not 

 be considered for the purpose of affecting the count 

 of the votes for Secretary. 



If by this is meant that those votes could not be 

 counted for either candidate, the course taken was 

 manifestly correct. But if we are to understand, as 

 w,> think \\ e must, that those votes were not regarded 

 in making up the whole number of votes cast, it is not 

 so clear that it was right 



Under a plurality rule, it is material only to count 

 the votes or the two highest candidates ; all scatter 

 ing votes are practically disregarded. Under the ma- 

 jority rule, all scattering votes are important and must 

 De counted. 



There were in the State 609 ballots rejected u for U-- 

 ing double." The respondent claimed that, under tin- 

 act of 1889. that was not a legal cause for their rejec- 

 tion. Previous to that act, the statute provided "that 

 no double ballot for the same office . . . shall be 

 counted"; Section 288. By the act of 1889, section 

 9, it is provided : " if more than one ballot f-r tin- 

 same office shall be found in any envelope, and Midi 

 ballots shall be tor the same person, only one shall bo 

 counted. And if such ballots shall be for different 

 for the same office, neither of such ballot* 

 shall be counted." That act also contains a repealing 

 clause, as follows : " Section 16. All acts or parte of 



