Reed v. Barton

• Decision Date: 18 July 1900
• Citation: 57 N.E. 961,176 Mass. 473
• Parties: REED v. BARTON et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

176 Mass. 473

57 N.E. 961

REED v. BARTON et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Franklin.

July 18, 1900

COUNSEL

Dana Malone, for petitioner.

Samuel D. Conant, for respondents.

This was a petition for a writ of mandamus to restrain the school committee of the town of Deerfield from interfering with the petitioner, who alleged that he had been elected superintendent of schools for the towns of Hatfield Leverett, and Deerfield. At a meeting of the school committees of the three towns, Hatfield and Leverett had three members each, while Deerfield had nine. To equalize the voting, it was agreed that each member from Deerfield should count for three-sevenths vote, giving Deerfield three votes. A ballot was taken, and one Kennedy had 4 2/7 votes, and C M. Barton 4 5/7 votes. Objections were raised to the fractional vote, and it was voted to adjourn before a decision was reached. At an adjourned meeting it was voted that 'we rescind the vote passed at our last meeting whereby we voted to elect a school superintendent.' It was then voted unanimously that at the new election there be a possible 27 votes if all were present, so as to give each town an equal voice in the election. A formal ballot was then taken, and the petitioner had 12 votes and C. M. Barton 11 votes, and the chair declared the petitioner elected. The Deerfield committee refused to recognize petitioner as superintendent, denying his title to the office. The respondents contended that Barton was duly elected at the first meeting.

OPINION

HOLMES C.J. (after stating the facts).

The members of the joint committee provided by St. 1898, c. 466 no doubt are intended to vote individually, and not by towns. At the same time, as town interests are concerned, it is at least consistent with the statute that the members should be at liberty, by unanimous consent, to secure an equal representation for each town. The number of which a school committee shall consist is left to the will of the town (Pub. St. c. 44, § 21), and it might be unjust that the representatives of a town with a school committee of nine should count for more on the joint committee than those of another town with a school committee of three.

It is true that the statute requires the superintendent of schools to be chosen by ballot, and that if votes are so far identified as to make it possible to give them different values, according to the town from which the voter comes, the secrecy of the ballot, if secrecy is intended, is impaired so far. But the remote implications of the provision for the ballot are at least...