St. Paul daily globe., 1894-07-15

clearly makes all persons not having
their certificates then filed and the fees
paid Ineligible for that or any other
office az that election. (See also Sec.
80. chapter 4, General Laws 1s9D.
10 this 1t is answered that suppose a
special election is held to fill vacancy,
ing IN q particular division of the city
Ineligible and therefore the law is ufi-
constitutional. concede 1t. That Is a
very different case. In that case the
voter residing In the other two divisions
of this city would at that election be
be deprived of substantial right. But
because It might be unconstitutional at
an election which may never be held, or
one which by mere accident may be
held, II does not follow that 1t must be
unconstitutional as to all other elec.
tions. Because the provisions of a
statute may be unconstitutional when
attempted to be applied to one condi-
tion Of things, Is no reason why 1t Is un-
constitutional as applied to all other
conditions of things. Conditions may
be discovered as applied to which,
many otherwise constitutional laws are
scheme of the legislature can be carried
out to its full extent is not the question
here. We are not trying the constltu-
tionality of scheme but of an action.
But before IL can be held that Rear
don and ArOsin are entitled to these
two offices. 1t must not only be held
that it Is unconstitutional to prevent
each of them from running for any of
these nine offices which he or the vOt-
ers might select. but 1t must also be
held that 1t is unconstitutional to divide
these offices into groups at all. so as to
prevent him from running a single
race for all those nine offices, with the
constitutional right to one, If he did
not fall further behind than ninth in
the race, and 1t seems to me that the
majority have found it necessary to
answer this proposition by Ignoring 1t.
AS we'll may 1t be said that any eligi-
bic voter has constitutional right to
run for all the county offices filed at
the same election by all the county.
But the legislature having failed to
provide for any such race, lie runs for
register of deeds, and being defeated
for that office, discovers after election
that he has more votes for the Office of
register than any man has for county
anditor, therefore, he claims the office
of county auditor though he never ran
for it at all.
His claim would be just as reasonable
as the claim Of Reardon or Arosin in
this case. Neither of them ran for the
offices here in question at all, but for
one of four other offices which he failed
to get. and being defeated, each dis
covers that he received more votes than
the respondents running another sepa-
rate race at same election for other and
different offices in separate group of
four.
1t seems to me that he has no more
right to an Office for which he did not
run, simply because he was not allowed
to run for it, than any other eligible
voter III the city.
Ii this reasoning is too subtle and re-
fined for the majority of the court, l
cannot help it. It falling to meet it, it
seems to me that they are acting on the
principle OH which the justice of the
peace acted when he held that the
plaintiffs case was so tangled up that
he could not unravel 1t. and so he had
to decide in the plaintiffs favor.
CAVITY, j.