The evening world., 1893-10-30
DECIDES AGAINST KEMPNER.
Police Commissioners Need Not
Put His Name on Ballots.
Justice Barrett Defines What Emit.
tlos a Candidate to Recognition.

Justice Barrett, of the Supreme Court.
has refused, without costs, - grant
Otto kempner, who wants to be elected
to the Assembly as an Independent
Democrat from the Seventh District, and
Herman ID Kl!nker, writs Of mandamus
compelling the Board of Police Commis-
sioners to accept certificates of nomi-
nations m print official ballots.
The Judge says in his opinion "Tnr
point here involved seems at first to be
a small one. But when the effect Of a
ruling one way or the other is consid-
cred. it becomes apparent that the ques-
ton is quite important. 1t Is important,
for instance, that citizens should be
facllltated in the exercise of their rights
TO present independent candidates. and
that they shoIll not be obstructed by
too narrow or technical al interpreted
lion OF the statute.
Upon the otner hand. it Is equally i'm
portant that the expenditure of public
money should be kept wIthin their legal
bounds. and that taxpayers, should not
be burdened with the expense of printing
ballots for candidates who are without
substance or genuine support. CHECKS
are placed upon mere frivolous candi-
dacies by the PROVISIONS or the, statute
with regard TO the NUMBER of voters
who are required to set lac machinery
OF independent nominations in motion.
The requirements of the statute on this
head should be strictly com )lied with,
else the checks npon idle or unsuhstan-
tial candidates at once break down. the
language of the statute as bearing upon
the present question, is that the nomina.
ton shall be made by a certificate signed
and acknowledged by such voters, each
of whom shall add to his signature
MS place Of RESIDENCE, and, make oath
that he is such voter and has truly
1.-The sole safeguard is here plainly
the oath. 1t would be easy enough to
prove signatures to n certificate without
an oath, and thus to evade the statute.
The difficulty would be in inducing a
large number of people to commit per,
jury, Clearly, therefore, the oath should
be rigidly demanded both in form and
substance. For there should be no pos.
sible question as to its adequacy tc
punish the nominator In case his state
ments as to residence and voting rights
are untrue.
The oath here exacted is not such as
is required to AFFECT registration or upor
a, challenge when the vote is offered
There the oath is Ike that administers
to n witness In open court. The officers
who execute the law are present anC
the rights flowing from the oath i'm,
medintely follow. Such an oath il not
and in the nature OF things cannot bu
In writing; nor need the aftiant's state
ment I've formally recorded. 1t is en-
tirely different, however, wncre the O0tr
Is taken for the very purpose OF makint
a record, and especially where it IL
taken before an officer who has no rcla
ton directly or indirectly to the election
machinery.
I'm the latter case the oath to have an,
value towards c~ffeCtEating the statutor!
safeguard must necessarily he in writ
ING and be signed hv tho uominotor"
Henry Scldncr. counsel for Mr.. Klinkcr
said to-day that he would ask Gov
Flower to COnVGn" "a special term of IN
supreme Court, General Term, in Ordc
=" might appeal the motion of hi
client.