OCR Text |
Show THE CONNECTICUT CONTROVERSY. Philadelphia Prea. The decision of the Connecticut supreme court In the disputed governorship question sustains the position of Governor Bulkcley. but it gives no hint :a to who the court thinks was elected in IH'M. The latter question, ques-tion, however, was not before it, and. there-fore, there-fore, not a auject for decision. The Connecticut constitution requires a declaration of the election by both houses of the legislature in joint session. The lower lioti.-i, which has a republican majority, refused to go Into such a session until the upper bouse, w hich has a democratic majority, ma-jority, had eousented to investigate and decide de-cide upon the disposition of some alleged marked ballots which nad been rejected by the county clerks. The democrats refused to comply with these terms, and went on and declared that their candidate for governor gov-ernor had been elected, and inaugurated him after a fashion. Hut Governor llulkelcy insisted that there bad been no declaration in joint session and that he had a right to hold over until such u declaration had been made. The ease wa-appealed to the court and llulkeley is sustained. Whether this decision will lead to any definite defi-nite action being taken by the legislature, which met yesterday, on the disputed ballots bal-lots remains to bejsei n. The republicans have always been ready to appeal the controversy con-troversy over these ballots to the courts, but Hie democrats have refused the offer. Euough ballots to defeat the democratic candidate for governor were rejected because be-cause they were accidentally marked in printing. But as tunny of the same kind of tickets were counted the republicans have claimed all along that all should be counted or all rejected. It Is instrin live to note that the New York court of appeals in its decision on the Dutchess senatorial district held that the hoard of canvassers could be restrained re-strained from canvassing a return based on a rejection of such alleged marked ballots, If this phase of the question were brought before the Connecticut supreme court It would probably be found to be of the same mind and the Heptibltcau position would be indorsed. It is nuire likely, however, that no di Unite action wtll lie lakeu towanl a settlement of the controversy, aud that Governor Bulkeley Bulke-ley will be permitted to serve until the governor gov-ernor chosen next November is inaugurated. This will give him the distinction of being the lirst governor to serve two terms since Connecticut changed its constitution and letigtbuued the gubernatorial term to two years. |