New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-11-23
AGAINST HUGO HIHSH.

JUDGE GAYNOR DENIES HIS APPLICATION FOR
MANDAMUs on THE GLEASON BALLOT CASE.
Judge William j. Gaynor Of the Supreme Court
in Brooklyn yesterday afternoon denied the apph-
cation OF Hugo Hirsh. the Republican candda'e TOT
a Supreme Cour; Judseship. for mandamus 10
compel the Canvassing Board Of Queens County 10
reject the polled by the Gleason!tes or resu
lar Democratic organization OF Long Island CITY
for Judge OF the Supreme Court The granting Of
the application the hearing which was held last
Thursday morning. would have given Mr.. Hrsh
place on the Supreme Court bench. In an elaborate
opinion Judge Geynor said, in part:
The election law changed at the last SEES
sion of the Legislature by doing away with sepa-
rate ballots for each ticket Of nominations. ana put
ting all tickets of nominations in columns upon one
ballot and also by requiring each ticket to be
headed by emblem. in addition 10 the former re-
Quirement Of a party name. Since this chan9e 'he
Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department has
decided that the nominees of local party must
stand alone in that partys column upon the BAL
lot. II is said that the requirement OF an en-
blem makes such change that this decision had
follow 1t may not be easy to see now me mere
coupling of an emblem with the name makes a
different does the rule OF TINS decision re-
suit In less number Of party columns put II Is
not necessary TO make a choice between these con-
hicting decisions; II is enough for the decison OF
the now under consideration that me law casts
upon the County Clerk the duty OF making up In, Inc
tickets and the ballots from ne Ii nom
nation that he did make them up ana 'ha' the
q
in the law elections that election officers may not
by their mistakes by their misconduct. ais
fra nchise voters and n there be any exception 10
this rule il arises of the nsurmountabe OBJ
stacles OF particular
The canvassers having no power TO reject the
ballots in question this Court has no power TO
order them do The objec, of an election count
is TO obtain the prma facie result from the ballots
which have TO be counted. and court may inter
fere only this result 10 be reached In due
order All questions lying deeper than this may
only be heard and decided in action 10 test title
Office.
The contention OF the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the ballots were marked for iden-
hca,on within the meaning OF Section ia, by rea-
son OF the filing OF the Gleason column with
the nominees of the Democratic party In the way
above stated ! fail 10 understand. All OF the bal
lots being the same, 81 cannot be said that they
were ma rked TO be identified distinguished. More
over the marking OF ballots for Identification must
be by the voters themselves. The mistakes Of the
County Clerk could not be attributed to them. But
the OF ballots alleged to be marked for ident-
fcaton is carefully provided for by the statute.
The canvassers are obliged to count them but they
have 10 annex them TO their return and then this
Court Is given Jurisdiction 10 determine whether
they were marked for the purpose OF identification,
and IL so 10 have them deducted by the canvassers
of election. The ballots 1aving been challenged
and returned marked. the Court cannot pass
upon them in that respect. The motion IL denied"