The record-union., 1896-10-09
MANDAMUS WRIT DENIED
Secretary Of State Browns Position
Explained.
He Believes That His Duty Was to
Certify the Names as He
Received Them.

The news that the Supreme Court
had denied the mandamus writ asked
| for by the Democratic State Central
Committee in the case Of Craig VS..
| Brown, to restrain the Secretary of
State from placing the designation
| National Democratic Electors" on the
ticket, reached this city yesterday
evening about $50 o'clock.
A Record Union reporter saw Mr.
Brown in reference to it, and the lat
| ter said:
Il believe it was my duty to certify
| the names of electors of the separate
| tickets, and that / could not refuse to
accept the certificate of the National
Democrats.
Mine is only a ministerial office, and
1 do not consider it my prerogative to
pass on questions of law. l receive the
| certificates presented and examine
! them, and if in keeping with Section
1192 of the Political Code / file them.
| If defective, l do not. Several certifi-
Gates were presented from several con-
ventions -Four We're proper and the
other three were certificates on petition.
THE law providing what constitutes
a party is set forth very clearly and re-
quires certificates signed by the officers
| Of the convention. That of the Demo-
cratic party was signed and flied, as
was that of the Peoples party. After
wards there was presented the resigna-
| ton of five Populists and four Demo-
Gratis, and the vacancies We're filled bv
the committees Of the two parties to
whom that duty had been delegated by
| the conventions.
| Il received a telegram from Mr. AL
| word, asking me if 1 intended to certify
each group of electors separately. and
l answered that l did. He informed
| me that it was his object to bring the
matter before the Supreme Court for
| determination. 1 construed the law to
| be that it was my imperative dutv to
| certify nine electors on each ticket
separately. / believe it to be nv duty
to certify to the County Clerks the GER
| tificates of nominations as received
| and filed here. The certificates of the
two parties were signed by the officers
| or two separate conventions. each
having different party designation.
| There is ample time to test the mat
| ter through the County Clerks when
1 Ai~NiAi5 op Tic DdllOlS, anu III the n
| mittee think they should be put in one
! group let them test it.
Il think that there are two Vavs of
| fusion that are better than the one
| adopted. One would be to have one
group, the other to have five in one
group and four in the other, then only
nine would be elected by the COM
b.ned vote. If grouped in one il must
be represented by two headings or one
party must give up it's identity. and
the following election would not have
cast three per cent. of the vote and
| would have to adopt a petition.
III there are two headings, the uues-
| tlon VIII arise If either party cast z
| per cent of the vote, and whether both
| parties did not lose their identity. They
could have petitioned as Democra tic
| Fopuilsts, and in two years from now I
| would be the same. A party can be
| created by petition and assume a name
| II the National Democrats get 5000
| votes they will be SO named hereafter
| ana perhaps they meant to be SO. So
| with the National party
The matter Of how the Electors,
votes shall be counted is a matter for
\ the election boards to determine and
| the courts viii pass upon it, as there is
| no precedent. The tally sheets will of
1 course, have duplicate names, as well as
| the ballots.
| 1 must carry out the will Of the con-
1 ventions and the people who petitioned
| ana nave certified to these names in ex-
| actly the same order in which they were
received. If / should reject or destroy
a certificate l should act arbitrarily.
| II have certified De Vries as an In
| dependent Populist. 1 consider the de-
nying Of the writ as equivalent to saw
ing that the National Democrats did not
| infringe on the other Democratic party
| in taking that name. AS the commit
tee did not bring UP in court the ques-
ton of grouping the names in one
group, 1 think they abandoned it be-
cause they were afraid of losing their
party designations. The only question
| now is the combining of votes, and that
may be determined by the courts.
| Il was not requested by the Demo
| cratic or Peoples Party Committees to
group the two sets of Electors in the
separate certificates filed by the two
| parties into one group. Several days
| after they were filed / was asked by
| Mr.. Alvord, the Chairman of the Dem
| ocratic State Central Committee if ]
| was going to group them, and he stated
he made the inquiry for the purpose OF
testing the matter inthe Supreme Court
| and said the papers touching the ques-
ton would be served upon me, and that
the case would be brought before the
| Supreme Court upon writ for deter
mination. l have, from the beginning
of the filing Of the certificates to the
final certifying of them to the County
| Clerks, endeavored to act fairly and
impartially toward all concerned, ire
spective of party, and / believe the rep
resentatives of the several parties with
| whom / transacted official business
| Will so testify. There being no law
| upon the question Of fusion in this
State, nor precedent established, I was
at times placed in a trying position"