New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-12-06
AFRAID OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
TuK HEARING BEFORE JUDGE EDWARDS AT BUl
SnN IN THp ELECTIONS CASES.

TUK HEARING BEFORE JUDGE EDWARDS AT BUD
son IN THD ELECTIONS CASES.
Hudson. n y. Dec (specaD.-Judge Edwards,
y the Supreme Cont. heard arguments today from
morning until the evening hours were nearly reached
upon the election in three Of the disputed sen
6e districts and at the close Of the day intmaed That
he would issue mandamus upon Monday IN compel
he State Board Of Canvassers 10 avoid using any
raneous papers canvassing the returns from those
districts. These cases should be decided by the
Court OF Appeals" said Judge Edwards today, and he
vii give his decision with the hope and expectation
that tey will be taken 10 the Court Of Appeals The
Repubicaa lawyers promised to make stipulation
that they would not oppose the taking Of these cases
10 The Court OF Appeals, but Isaac il. Maynard the
Democratic counsel. would not make this stipulation,
declaring that he must first obtain the consent Of the
state Board Of Canvassers. In order 10 give Mr. May
nN an opportunity to obtain this consent Of the
ss'e Board Of Canvassers the Judge adjourned the
hrther hearing Of the cases until Monday next at
Albany
The Republicans were represented by William A.
Sutherland Matthew Hale, John F. Parkhurst and
Eugene Burlngdme, and the Democrats By Isaac H.
Maynard and Delos McCurdy. Besides, there were
present Franklin D. Sherwood, and Rufus T. Peck, two
The Republican Senatorselect. The argument was
opened for the Republicans by Mr. Parkhurst, who
tesrbed in detail the Objections made by the mocratS
70 granting certificates of election TO the successful
republican candidates. What the Republicans objected
w. he said was the consideration by the State Board
Canys,,ers Of any papers except the returns
showing which Of the candidates received the largest
hamber Of votes. any extraneous papers, he argued
ought to be rejected and writ OF mandamus served
upon the state Board of prohibiting them
hom using these papers.
IN his reply Mr.. Maynard, speaking for the State
Board Of Canvassers argued that this body could reject
W. Sherwood because Of his alleged ineHgibity and
soch refuse a certificate to Mr. Peck because OF the
nslskes Of the County CleIk OF Onondaga County In
tsributlng the ballots. As for the Osborne and the
btf5y cases. in both the state Board had right to
consider e1traneOus papers. IL was not simply
Ministerial body.
William 4. sutherland opposed these views and
called the attention Of Judge Edwards to the fact that
The Onoudaga district both political parties had
sed 10 take the disputed Senate cases TO the Court
Appeals. This hc thought should be the procedure
h tAs other cases.
Mr. Maynard denied that the supreme Court Judges
you'd issue writ Of mandamus directed against the
STATE Board Of Canvassers. II the Republicans sue
eedec their act would be judicial usurpaion Of the
hsass Of the state Board Of Canvassers.
AF. Hale asked Mr. Maynard what remedy the
people bad against any wrongdolng by the State Board
".snvassens after that body should finally adjonrn.
Nf Maynard could not answer this question Mr..
A7hsrd then said I'VE say that the body which
saes certificate Of election a Senator has night
oeermlne be Il eligible. We hold that the ballots
a Tor Sherwood were blank BALLOTS
az Hale ably argued In reply that II Mr.. haynards
ssanent was true the people had rights which the
~ 80 Board Of Canvassers were bound TO respect
9 could usurp the right conferred by the Constitu-
:. upon TIE Legislature TO Judge Of the QUALIFICATIONS
- ~ o~n members and there no redress' IL was
- Ron Mr.. MsyBsrds remarks that the state Board
''''srs did not propose TO oonine itseif 10 the