The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-04-16
i'm HALLAHAN'S FAVOR



tiicate shall give the business address also. We
are OF opinion that when the name and business
address are given, IL Is an extremely technical
objection TO say that the business address Is
Such are the defects in the certificate of Hal
lahan's nomination. Technically, these defects
and II OF the ballot law. Z
As we have shown, and as we think would be
accepted by any one, none 81 these deseoas are
brought to the attention Of court. as IN this
case. But we wish here to guard our language
there are times, circumstances or places, or
manner OF raising the question, where and when
the defects described, may. by court, be con-
this inquiry we limit ourselves to tho considera-
ton OF these defects as they are brought before
the court at this time, In the manner and under
the circumstances, and In connection with fhe
facts as they appear by the findings Of the court
in this case. We believe that, from the point Of
view which we occupy. and which the district
these defects In Hallahan's certificate, ara Of
the nature OF the mint, the anise, and the cum
min, and not OF the weightier matters OF the law.
Gospel of Matthew chap. xiii, 2s.)
II is now important to note that the defects
In Hallahans certificate were simply the absence
absence OF the existence OF the facts. While IL
is not stated In the certificate to be the fact,
still 1t is fact. that Whifmire declined his
nomination In the only manner practicable Tor
him to make his declination. Also, 1t is the
fact that Hailahan was nominated to NIL the
Il Is sne fact that the cause q the
Hailahan was substituted. It Is the fact that the
is the fact that the business addressed to Hal a.
han, and the chairman and secretary or the
peoples party committee, was the same as the
II is the fact that Hallahan was duly nominated
by the committee having such authority. He
was qualified to hold the ofice. He received
olher candidate. The ballots cast for him were
regular, and were cast by legal voters. He was
the choice OF the nominating authority OF his
party. He was the choice Of the voters Of his
party. His nomination. or his certificate OF
nomination was never attacked. until after an
election, the honesty and fairness Of which has
never been questioned =
Therefore, we come to this proposition, I'M
der all the facts In this case, does the Austria
liam ballot law contemplate that an election
shall be declared null by reason of the defects
| In the nominating certificate such as exist in
this case? We think not.
In holding this view we are constrained to de-
part, TO some extent from the doctrine an
nounced In Price VS.. Lush, SUPRA.
In that case it was said; 1.-The statement of
contest points out many particulars wherein
| the foregoing requirements OF the statute have
not been complied with. Are these provisions
| directory or mandatory? When this question
| is decided the appeal will be determined"
page $50.
In the conclusion of the opinion it was said:
1.-THE principle which has called into being this
law, that prescribes the conditions for the noml
nations of candidates for Office before the day
of election. demands the enforcement OF every
That case has generally been thought to hold
that every provision Of the ballot law must be
strictly COMPLIED with. or the election of a can
didate no. so complying will be void. But it Is
not necessary to so hold In that case. The case
was decided upon the pleadlngs. ~
IL was held that the statement OF the contest
a violation of almost every provision of the bal
lot law. All that this court necessarily held in
that case was that motion TO qiashtne state
mani ShOud not have Dpen Aimed. Knit
are satisfied that the decision went too far in
holding absolutely. Qf 1t did so. as generally
law are mandatory, to the extent of invalidatlng
an election, IL sons detail as to nominating
certificate Is omitted. The law may be man.
datory In this. thar, 1t requires certain things
To be done, II the direct question arose as to
their being done were left undone. In some pro-
ceeding to determine s, that question court
instance. the issuing OF some process forbidlng
the filing OF the certificate which did notcompY
81 Pac Rep. ssO.) But that Is a different propo-
stion from holding that II such things are not
done, the result must be disfranchisement OF a
plurality or majority OF the voters OF the dis
trict.
In this connection we cite as follows from the
Oregon case, just above re.erred to.
As to the views which courts have taken
of defects in certificates of nomination,
and as to the spirit of the provisions of the
Australian ballot law. the court quotes a
number of decisions: Simpson, VS.. Os-
born, 81 Kansas, 328; State vs.. Allen, 60
N. w. Rep. IS, (Nebraska) State VS..
Saxon. 30 Florida, 66s; Boyd VS.. Mills, 80
KS. $40. The court then continues:
Returning again TO Price VS.. Lush. we OBJ
serve that the doctrine was there invoked that
by the adoption OF statute Of a foreign coun-
try, the subject Of which was new to this juris-
given TO such statute by the courts OF such for
elgn country. provided our own statute, as en-
acted. was silent al to matter Of construction.
Eminent authority was cited In support of that
doctrine, as remarked in State VS.. Barber.
(Wyo.(, 80 Pac, IL. That this general doctrine
should obtain, We have no doubt: Il has often
been declared by this court. Indy VS.. Davis,
Mont 45s; Territory vs.. Steaye, Id, $50;
Bank VS.. Mig. Co., 8 Mont, 80.
But we think that In Price v. Lush the doc
trine should have been taken with n, modifica-
ton. which escaped the attention of the court.
The Australian ballot law was adopted from a
monarchcal governments limited monarchy,
perhaps, but stil OF the nature of a monarchy
The law was brought from such a government
TO a republic. In the former the tendency Is TO
limit and restrict the electoral franchise. In
the latter the tendency Is to extend the, same.
The particular form OF ballot law known rs the
Australian system was new TO our jurisdiction.
But construction OF election laws generally was
not with us new field OF law. And In the con-
struction Of election laws, the whole tendency
OF American authority Is toward liberaJlty. TO
| the end of sus tanning the honest choice OF the
electors. t.'f ~
As said by Chief Justice Groesbcck, In state
V. BARRIER. 81 1aclnc Reporter, IS. AltnOugn
our statute isa very faithful copy OF the Austria.
liam ballot law, see no reason for adopting the
| construction OF the British courts, wnlcn ap-
pears to be most rigid. do not see why this
| law should be more strictly construed than amy
other statute, or why different rules OF con-
| structiou from those invariably followed by the
courts should be adopted In constituting the stat
ute." See also cases above cited, and cases
| cited In the brief OF counsel for Halahan.
We are OF the opinion that an election law
| imported from monarchy TO republic should
| therefore not be subjected strictly TO tho rule
| that the importation of a statute imports also
| Its construction. In this respect, and for tho
/ reason suggested, we are OF The opinion that
/ Price vs. Lush extended the rule TO an applca-
ton not warranted by our history, our institll-
| lions, and the former decisions OF Amer lean
| courts upon the construction of election laws.
| These views lead us TO the opinion that the pro-
| visions OF our Australian ballot law should not
be construed as strictly mandatory, when the
question OF their observance or disobedience
1 Is raised under the facts and circumstances
i found In the case at bar.
| Price VS.. Lush, however,is distinguishable from
| the case at bar IN this respect, as remarked
4 above in this opinion. that that case was de-