St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-10-24

ton Of the law every safeguard that in
genuity or precedent could suggest was
incorporated in the act. Heavy penal
ties were provided for and the time and
manner OF doing the most important
acts were clearly specified. The duty
of preparing, grouping the names upon
and printing the state and electoral bal
lots was finally placed with the Secre-
tary of state, not because that was any
part of his constitutional duty, but
merely for convenience. The precedent
act of 1889 vested that duty with the
state auditor, but in the redraft and ex-
tension of 1891 it was changed as indi-
Gated.
This Very Point.
Now it is of paramount importance
that all acts required to be done from
the first to the last and from the least to
the greatest should be promptly and
properly performed by those to whom
the duty is intrusted. They are allowed
ample time, and the prompt perform
ance by one is necessary in order that
the others may be enabled to per-
form. During the drafting and discus
sion of the measure the question nat
urally aroSe-suppOse the secretary of
state or the county auditor in any
county should refuse to place the name
OF any candidate Oh the ballot, or should
neglect or refuse to perform any of the
duties imposed by law, as, for instance.
to printing and forwarding the ballots,
what would be the result?
The result would be in the latter case
that the election could and would be
thrown by the neglect of single Off
Ger, and an entire state might be pre-
vented from participating in general
election, OF an entire county might be
in cfafn al.
1t was suggested that in case any such
trouble should arise nOn-otficial ballot
might be used, but the remedy proposed
was worse than the disease, for the
chance to. use non-official ballot might
be used as a powerful leverage to induce
disregard OF the law by the officials in
terested. That would not do, because
1t would destroy the entire system.
The only remedy that seemed to be
lett was to incorporate section 4S, Civ
ing the courts power in the interests of
the whole people, to summarily bring
before them any and all officers who
might be disregarding their duties and
have hearing; in other words, a
tribunal was provided where any diff
Guilty or wrong, real or fancied, could
be heard and determined. The sole
purpose was to protect the people and
further insure the execution Of the law,
and no other method seemed to be ade-
quate or proper.
Purely Ministerial.
The legislature might have provided
for the appointment of a person or board
to perform the duty vested with the
secretary, and might possibly. as it has
often done in the past, designated who
should be the person to fill that posi-
ton; but instead of doing that it i'm
posed the duty upon existing officials.
The duty of secretary of state is merely
ministerial, and no part of his constitu-
tionai duty.
Just what the court means to do with
section IS it is difficult to determine
from the opinion. 1t recognizes its i'm
portance and purpose. but says its pro-
visions cannot apply to the case of the
secretary. There is probably no doubt
but that the position. following other
decisions. is correct if those decisions
are TO stand in their entire scope, and
yet the duty is in fact no more executive
in its nature than any other act. The
supreme court Judges by the same act,
and for years have been constituted to-
gether with the secretary of state state
canvaSSlng board, and perform those
duties although they are not judicial III
their nature. Be this as it NAV, one
thing is evident, and that is that seri-
Gus menace exists in tie present Sltua-
ton.
That menace exists by reason of the
fact That singlAindividuai through in
nocent mistake, venality or coercion
can stop the wheels of the state, DENY
the people an election, defraud an in
dividual candidate of his right and usurp
the government, without any power
either to reach him or to carry on his
duties and preserve the rights of citi-
zens. No review, no tribunal to even
hear the question, nothing but the use
less pr0ce SIS of impeachment, which he
could avoid by resigning after the harm
was done or the purpose accomplished.
1t must be remembered that this case is
different from the one where some
small matter is pending, involving one
or several individuals; and the rule.
though it may be,
Should Not Be the Same.
Almost all wrongs or denials of right
can be reached by mandamuS, habeaS
corpus, or through the civil and criminal
channels of the law, and jurors and all
subordinate officers and courts are under
tie supervising and correcting power of
some tribunal. Those things, however,
deal with minor matters, but here is
case where all interests, the very con-
Shtutional life of the state itself, is in
act the only necessary step to stop every
thing. Tine purpose of this letter is not
for criticism. but to point out what may
at some time be dangerous weakness.
1t is true that responsibility must
be vested somewhere, but in a case
where an action or refusal 10 act is
blow at the government itself. some
provision, constitutional Or otherwise,
should be made whereby the result of
an honest mistake, it may be, can be
corrected and the unfortunate results
avoided in time.
1t is not my purpose to discuss the
functions of the separate departments
OF the government and their relations
to each other. The doctrines as to those
matters differ materially in different
states. Our court has adopted one rule
and adhered to it, but that does not
solve the problem that is presented by
this episode, nor does the opinion OF the
court as reported clear up the question
of the effect of section 43 in other cases
where application may be made under
1t. JOHN ARNOLD KEYES.
REGISTER TOMORROW.