St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-10-18
Is There a Recourse for the
People Against an OFF,
cial'S Error?
Difference Between Others
Decided and the Case
Now at Bar.
Elaborate Arguments by Able
! Attorneys on the Points
Involved.
The Court Promises to An
nOunce It's Decision This
Morning.

AhO iuoiiudlliuS proceedings against
the secretary of state to compel him to
properly arrange the official ballot for
presidential electors came on in the dis
trIct court yesterday, Judge Brill re-
questing Judge Otis to sit with him in
the consideration of the case. The re-
lator. the Democratic state central COM
mlttee. was represented by Judge Flau-
drau, Z. ID. OBrien and Ambrose Tighe.
Secretary of State Brwon appeared.
accompanied by Attorney General
Clapp i'll the capacity of attorney. The
latter filed an answer for the secretary,
stating that 1t was hastily prepared,
and he might wish to add to it later.
This return simply sets up that Secre-
tary Brown on the Sth day of October
received certificates of nomination
tor the electors nominated by the Peo-
pies party July 13. According 10 sec
ton 81 of the election law the nomina-
tlons were accompanied by. petition
co ntaining the names of 1900 citizens
NO other certifi cate of nomination for
the Peoples party electors had been
filed, and in making up the official
tick ct the secretary had simply followed
the provisions of the law i'll placing the
names on the ballots in the order in
which the certificates were filed.
Judge Brill suggested that the ques-
ton of jurisdiction of the court arose,
and asked the attorney general what he
mad to offer on that point, the latter re-
plying that the secretary of state had
been advised to waive that point. The
attorneys for the other side, however.
desired its discussion, holding that the
court had Jurisdiction, and that other
wise the secretary might omit any can-
didate or set of candidates from the
ticket and there would be no redress for
the aggrieved party.
Judgc Fisandrau's Address.
We brought this proceeding, if your
honors please. in the public interest,
because we were apprehenSive that if
this error, as we claim 1t to be, was not
corrected it might result possibly in
controversy as to the admission of the
vote of the State-itS being counted when
the general returns are made up. l
have no doubt that the Republicans
hope and expect to carry the state,
and the Democrats entertain the same
views. and we want it corrected
ii it can be, entirely in the interest of
the states vote being counted without
any controversy or trouble which might
arise over it. And we think that per-
hapS what is said about it may infiu-
ence the secretary of state mo doubt his
desire is to do his duty, if he thinks lie
has committed an error in placing those
names upon the ballot as he has, to cor
rect it. He certainly has the power.
Upon the question of jurisdiction, we
have, it your nOnOrS please. looked at
haf hou hOcn I
by the supreme court. and [ am frank
to say that each successive case seems
to have been directed at the last one, to
FL! gap and cut off this jurisdiction, if
there was anything left. The last
case is stronger than any of the
rest of them. Now, knowing that,
and feeling the embarrassment that we
labor under, that these decisions are
against us oil the question generally of
jurisdiction in reference to the Judiciary
interfering with the executive depart
ment, we say then that this particular
question IS distinguishable entirely
from those cases in this: Now, take
article /, section 2 of the constitution.
Section reads: Rights and Privileges
of CitiZenS-NO member of this state
shall be diSfranchiSed, or deprived
of any OF the rights or privileges secured
to any citizen thereof, unless by the law
of the land, or the Judgment of his
peers" Now, there is constitutional
provision on the subject of voting, of
the exercise Of the franchise, and it
provides distinctly that no citizen of
this state shall be deprived OF that right
except by the Judgment of his peers, in
accordance with law. Now, article
z, section 1 of the cOnstitu-
ton provides who shall exercise
that right: Every male person
of the age of twenty-one years or
or upwards belonging to either of the
following classes, who shall have resided
in the United States one year, and in
this state for four months next preced
ing any election. shall be entitled to
vote at such election in the election dis
trict where he resides" etc. Now, there
the constitution particularIzes the quail
fications, confers the right, says who
shall exercise it, and then, to clinch it,
says he shall not be deprived of that
right except bp due process of law, or
the judgment of his peers.
The constitution also provides what |
the duties of the secretary of state are.
and they shall be such as prescribed by
law. Article 3, section so, amended, |
says: They shall be such duties as are
prescribed by law. Article l, section s,
which is entitled .'Bill of Rights" says |
thoe CNCIy pClooii 10 OuIltiCot w o SOi te'iu |
remedy in law for all injuries or wrongs
which he may receive in his person,
property or character.
We have then, as l said before, first, |
the constitution. prescribing the quail
ficatiOnS of the voter and comforting the
right upon him; next, provision say
ing that he shall not be deprived of it,
and third, provision saying that he
shall have a speedy remedy for any
wrongs that he may suffer
Now, this law is peculiar one. This !
law Is solely upon the subject of the
exercise OF the franchise. Ii is entitled,
.An Act Regulating Elections" and
was passed recently, at the last session,
and prescribes nothing else than how
that constitutional right shall be eXer-
cised. 1t confefS certain duty upon
the secretary of state, and at the same