Springfield 1636-1886, History of Town and City, by Mason A. Green ...

SPRINGFIELD, 16S6-JSS6. 3G1
The state elections were then held iu April. The excitement through-
out the State at the spring elections of 1812 was intense. In spite of
everything, the federalist peace cry was sweeping the State. While in
this conservative town Gerr}^ polled two hundred and fifty votes and
Caleb Strong, of Northampton, two hundred and thirty-three, the lat-
ter was elected, and the resistance to the war measures against Great
Britain was at once begun. Under ordinary circumstances the thing
for Governor Gerry to have done was to refuse to meddle with the
oflEices that were to come into existence in the August following by
the incorporating act of Hampden county. But patronage then, as
now, had its charms, and under great provocation he was induced, on
May 20, to appoint Samuel Fowler, of Westfield, democrat, probate
judge of the prospective county, and three days later he made Jona-
than Smith, Jr., of Westfield, another democrat, high sheriff.
This greatly irritated the federalists, and they attempted to throw
out of court one of the first cases in which Smith's deputy served a
warrant. The suit was Fowler vs. Beebe, George Bliss appearing for
the defendants. He argued that at the time of Smith's commission
as sheriff no such office existed. It was possible that such an office
would exist in the autumn of the year, and that Smith would be a
proper person to fill such a possible office. " This last, however,"
added Mr. Bliss, with emphasis made cutting b}' political bias, " in
the opinion of many, is n. potentia remotissiina." Mr. Bliss then con-
tinued : " This appointment is also void, as it is a flagrant infringe-
ment of the rights and authorities of the succeeding executive officers
of the government who were in a few da3's to enter upon the duties
of their appointment, and would be in the exercise of their offices
more than two months before the county of Hampden would com-
mence its existence. If an appointment had been ever so neces-
sary or convenient before the operation of the act, there can be no
pretence that such necessity or convenience existed on the 23d of
May. But it is a sufficient answer to the argument from the inconven-
ience of a countv lieing without officers that the consideration of that