St. Paul daily globe., 1894-07-15
JUDGE CAVITY DIS sENTs,
And States Convincing Reasons
Why lie Does SO.

Why lie Does SO.
dissent. l concede that the consti-
tutional provision in question applies to
city offices and requires the candidate
to reside In the particular division of
the city before election, not to remove
to it after election il elected. | also
concede that the provisions of the city
charter are unconstitutional, as applied
to the election In question, if these pro-
visions affect a substantial right guar
anteed by the constitution. The whole
city being one election district, con-
cede that under the constitutional pro-
vision in question every voter is eligible
and entitled to be elected to any one of
these nine Offices for which he may re-
ceive the requisite number Of votes, and
that this provision of the charter is un-
constitutional if. by being confined to
particular one or a particular four of
these nine offices, and not being allowed
to he candidate for any of the others,
he Is deprived of a substantial right. If
l have constitutional right to my
choice of one of nine silver dollars, all
exactly alike, and, instead of permitting
which one | shall take, [ have lost no
substantial right and the statute is not
unconstitutional. This is exactly the
constitutional question involved in this
case, and the only one.
Each of these nine Offices is exactly
like the others; each of the nine mem
bers when elected performs the same
functions, has the same powers, honors
and emoluments. and bears the same
responsibilities. Then, If the voter
has the right to elect the candidate to
one of these offices, and he has lost no
opportunity of being elected BY being
confined to particular one, he is not
deprived of any substantial right. The
law refuses to recognize a distinction
without difference, to correct error
without prejudice. or to enforce rights
that are not substantial. The legisla-
ture had right to say that instead Of
there being what may be called a sweep
stakes race for these nine Offices there
should be nine races, one for each
office, all run at the same time, and If
each candidate had right to take his
choice of which one of these pine races
he would enter, he could not complain.
The legislature had right to labe
each of those nine Offices with differ
ent label, and require the voter to vote
for specified candidate for a specified
office, and provide that the votes cast
for such candidate for several of these
nine offices cannot be all counted for
him for one office. But unless some
thing is done before election to desig-
nate for which one of the nine offices q
particular candidate shall run, it will
result in confusion. Jones may get 200
votes for Office No. l, 1.300 for Office No.
2, 1900 for Office No. 3. and thus the
vote for him may be distributed or scat
tered through the whole nine offices.
Has the legislature no right to prevent
such confusion by designating which one
of the nine offices Jones shall run for,
if they thereby deprive him of no
what the legislature has done in this
case. But Instead of labelling each of
the nine offices by different label,
they have labeled four by one label,
four by another and one by another,
and accordingly provided for three
separate races, one for each group of
Offices. The candidate who entered
one race ran for one of the four offices
in particular group against the other
candidates running for the Offices i'm
that group, and if he was not more than
IOuIlH lii tIIC IoCC was 10 an
office, and SO of the candidate who ran
for one of the offices in the other group
of four, and the candidate who ran for
the Office standing alone in group by
itself ran only against the cand idates
running for that office, and had no
right to it unless he was first in the
race. And certainly if each candidate had
a right to select which race he would en-
ter, out of which group he would seek
all office, his constitutional rights were
not infringed. But what has he lost by
having the law designate the group in
which he should Iun? 1t is not claimed
that there was any gerrymandering or
unfair apportionnent of the eligible
voters amE )ng the groups, or that each
candidate did not have as much oppor-
tunity to be voted for and be elected
when the statute made the choice for
him as if he had made 1t for himself. To
say that under such circumstances his
constitutional rights had been infringed
is TO say that it is SO sacred right that
it cannot be regulated at all. If this is
true then the whole Australian ballot
law is void, because 1t provides (sec. a..
chapter 4, Laws of 1888 that the certifi-
cate of nomination of the candid ate
for state office shall be filed IN ore
than four weeks before election. for a
county Office three weeks and tor 6 city
Office ten days beftxe election, and