St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-10-18

voting he could make his own ballot:
everybody could furnish his own ballot,
or write his own ballot, or have them
partly written and partly printed; there
was no restriction to the voter in that
respect. Now they take it all out of his
hands. They say you cannot vote un-
less you vote this ballot. or il is tae
only ballot that will 20. into the ballot
/ box.
:, Mr.; Clapp-I think, judge if you will read
ton
Mr.. Flandrau-No ballot can go into the
ballot box at the booth except this one.
Mr. Ciapp-1es. but you can vote without
ticket
MI. Flandrau-Oh, yes don't claim you
Sutn ,,O vote except for men on one ticket,
t nut you cannot vote any other ballot than
lnose furnished by these officers
ballot yes
MIR. Flandrau-Of course the right of fran
c I'M and the exercise of it is guaranteed W
the constitutions; the peculiar methods of
proceeding in the exercise of that right are
subject to the law. There is no doubt about
I aia they can regulate that. But when they
a d undertake to regulate it as they have
Done here, and have taken away from the
ciiizen las part of this reguation) the priv
lieSe ne had of making up his own ballot,
anu CONFER II upon somebody else 1t seems
70 me that section 43 here. in the broad COM
pfenenslve language of its meaning means
to include the secretary of state as well as
ANYBODY else from the fact that they knew
II they did not make it general in that re-
sDect thoroughly o,that this question might
| be raised in reference to it. And il seems 10
me. your honors that it is very plain that the
whole thing is entirely different from any
thlng that has. ever been presented to the
consideration of the judiciary before: it is a
supplemental act here to carry out ard con-
iuh ,o1i h a
rights that are conferred by the constitution.
Proposition Conceded.
| :, Mr.. O'Brien-If the court will permit me.
| tne position of the attorney general entirely
| oisposes OF this question of Jurisdiction The
attorney general of the state comes here and
| WINE expressing his doubts as to the juris-
! ulcton OF this matter he SAYS to the court
mat II It does assume jurisdiction it's decision
| VIII be implicitly obeyed by the secretary of
State. Now, that comedies two or three
| propositions. 1t comedies the jurisdiction,
IL the court is of the opinion that it has it,
| which will be followed: and it comedies thai
the present form of that ticket is erroneous
AND the position of the executive officer of
the state, in that way, it seems to me, is con-
| elusive on the question Of jurisdiction, and
the attorney general cannot imperil a aues
| lion OF this kind by saying that an order will
| De opeyed from tribunal without jurisdic-
| ton.
| Mr.. Flandrau-As 10 the position of the at
| w
| was supposed to have been passed with ref
erence to the existing state of judicial decis-
| IONS, 1t can be most conclusively shown that
mat is not the correct position.
The Court-Well that question is not be-
| fore US now
Mr.. Flandrau-That is the reason I re-
Trained from making any remarks upon it,
The Court-The question of course, of
jurisdiction is first to be considered. We do
not desire to hear counsel on any other
point until we have determined that ques-
ton We will consider the matter during the
day, and l think will be able to announce a
declslon tomorrow morning at 10 o clock.
Mr, o Brien-In your honors chambers, or
In the court room?
The Court think in Court Room No. l. l
Shall probably be holding court tomorrow
morning.
MIR. Tighe's Point.
Mr.. Tighe-Before your honors adjourn
this heariug l should like to suggest one
point that has not been raised; it will only
take an instant; ana that is, the section
which prescribes the duty of the secretary of
state. 1t says that the duties of said executive
0filcers shall each hereafter be prescribed by
law giving them such powers as are pre-
scrlbed by law. Now, in the decision in
which this question was raised before the su-
preme court of this state, in each case a dis
tlnct duty was conferred upon the secretary
OF state or the other executive officer.
Mr. o Brien-By the constitution.
MT. 1lghe-And there was no limitation in
same, but either OH account of his failure to
perform it, or the method in which he did
perform it, proceedings in the nature of a
mandamus were brought against him, and
the supreme court held that there was no
jurisdiction. Now. in this case there is this
difference: that the duties and powers which
are conferred upon the secretary of state by
the section giving him the duty of printing
the ballots is limited in the same law by the
supervisory power on the part of the judge
to whom application is made in case of an
error having been committed; therefore the
powers which are conferred upon the secre-
tary of state by this law are not the power to
prepare the ballots but the power TO prepare
the ballots subject to the supervision of the
judge to whom the aggrieved party may APP
ply for remedy. That seems to NE to be
an important distinction which has not been
drawn by any one who has yet spoken on the
question.
Mr.. Flandrau-Except SO far as we claim
tits Joint.
Mr.. CIapp-Yes. That was all gone over
Now, If the court should decide that it has
jurisdiction would the question be heard to-
morrow?
The Court see no reason why it can
not be.
Mr.. Flandrau-It ought not to take very
long to discuss that placing OF the ticket