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

| the legislation; but / am not prepared
| to assent. and l deny that the decisions
of the supreme court in this case oper-
ate as bar to prevent your hOnOrS
giving your opinion, or to prevent the
J judicial department giving its opinion
to the executive officer as to what his
acts should be. 1t the secretary of state
refused to carry out that opinion, if he
| refused to correct manifest error,
what the Result Would BE,
| what consequences would attach to
| him, becomes question. But to say
| that this statute Is to be emaSculated by
| closing the mouth of the Judiciary upon
| a question where the statute says the
judge must speak, and that we have
right to ask him to speak upon, it seems
to me is going entirely beyond the limit
of the doctrine that the executive cam
| not be controlled by judicial officer,
| each department being independent.
| Therefore, [ think, the view taken by
Judge Flandrau, and by my colleague
here, is entirely correct.
Now, there is this to be said in rela-
ton to this matter. 1t is serious Ques-
ton. The voice of any citizen, in
petition to the court. must be listened to
| in appealing to public servant. no
| matter how high the Office, must
be listened to with respect. The
matter which we are considering
here is not personal matter. Today
| the political party with which we at
present affiliate-and think the three
| particular counsel here do not stand in
any immediate danger of suddenly
| changing their views-does not happen
/ to be i'll power in this state. The Aus
tralian ballot system is rapidly sweep
tlrnnph ic
already established in the Northwest,
and there are some Democratic states
where it is i'll force; and if we sanction
this method of procedure, or an I'M
proper method of procedure, other
states throughout the republic might
make this an excuse and bring about an
application OF forces which would not
only affect the counting of vote but
the very casting of it.
Electors Should BE Grouped.
The ayerments of the petition i'm this
matter are based upon the provision
OF the law which says that these elect
0rs shall be grouped together. The
reasons for it are obvious, and it is not
necessary for me to argue them. 1t is
unQuestlOned that the law. so far as its
expression is concerned, has been vio-
lated, and why? 1t makes no differ
ence who does this thing, the question
is public question. and an Important
one, this approaching election. The
official ticket, according to the evidence
laid before the court, does not group
the nine Democratic electors. Why?
Why doesn't it group them? Do you
find the answer in this return? The re-
turn shows that in making the several
groups OF presidential electors, said sec
retary followed in each ease the order
in which the names appear upon the
certificate of nomination, and that
in arranging the order in which
the names of the candidates for
presidential electors of the Peoples
party were to be placed he simply fol-
lowed the order in which the same ap-
pear in the certificate of nomination.
Wherefore respondent asks that these
proceedings be dismissed. There you
have the entire thing. Now, if the po-
sltlon of the respondent here is that he
is above and beyond the law, and that is
sustained by the supreme court of the
state of Minnesota, that is all right.
AT considerable and interesting
length, Mr.. O'Brien argued that the
important phase of the case was to
show whether, when wrong was
shown. as in case like this, there was
any remedy. 1t is question whether
state officer is beyond the reach of the
law. 1t was repugnant, he said, to the
proper construction of the statute to
say that the Legislature deliberately put
the printing and the formulation and
Issuance of the state ballot into hands
where no authority remained on earth
to control it. He is then entirely with
out the pale of the law. | do not think
that can be the construction.