The Robbins Eagle

PHOENIX NEWS

JOHN HANCOCK WRITES

Last Friday, Jan 17 at 9:30 a.m. the Illinois Supreme court reconvened for the purpose of hearing such business as may come before it. First on call was the appeal from a County court decision voiding the April election of the Village clerk, and Police magistrate of Phoenix, on the ground that the ballot used did not meet the requirements of the election code. This ruling by county court was appealed by these officers to the supreme court, and hearing was set for this date. Seventeen (17) residents of Phoenix were present to hear argument by opposing counsel.

Counsel for the appellants (village att'y) in his opening argument attempted as usual to minimize the glaring neglect of officers responsible for the election machinery by claiming the Statute had been substantially complied with and endeavored to impress the court that the election was of little importance and that this so-called substantial compliance was sufficient. He was questioned closely by several of the Justices as to the structure of the ballot, and the reasons for preparing such a ballot or how it could be successfully voted in its present form. That his answers did NOT impress the court, was plainly apparent.

The main point he tried to make was that the County court erred in allowing contest of two offices to be joined together in a single action. In his argument on this point. Att'y Ming counsel for Appellee stated: "One petition for the contest of two offices in a single action is no new. In one case on this point this court sustained'the invalidation of the election because of similar irregularities in the ballot." The County court had jurisdiction in this case because that courts jurisdiction is limited to Village Clerks and Police magistrates. All of the offices cannot be contest in any one court, so the jurisdiction of County court was clear.

In making his main point of the argument Atty Ming dramatically pointed out: "That the village clerk, and others of the Good Government party who were also incumbent officers. in an election where their only opposition were compelled to run as write ins or not at all; should have been most particular in observing all of the requirements of the election. rather than be suspected of convenient ignorance of its provisions. It behooves them to attempt to minimize their gross neglect by saying it was inconsequential and-that substantial compliance was sufficient".

This hearing has been a long time coming. Seven months almost to the day. Opinion is expected from the Supreme court within possibly 30 days. If in favor of the County court ruling the decision will serve to void the entire election: All that has been written by this writer has been to point out one thing.

That the intelligence of the people of Phoenix has been insulted. Not only the people on the East side but both sides of town. These ballots have been prepared and used because it was thought that no one knew any better.

They even continued to malign your intelligence even before the highest court in the state, by their attorney who is paid from the village treasury. When things come to this point. that a party in power can insult the intelligence of the people who elect them, it really is something to think about, and do something about.