The record-union., 1896-10-04
HAD NO RIGHT TO REFUSE.
National Democrats Allowed to File
Their Nominations.
secretary OF State Brown Quotes the
Decisions of the Colorado
Supreme Court.

Cert1ncateS of nomination were filed
yesterday in the office of the Secretary
u state Dy the National Democratic
party Tor Electors, as follows: Clay W..
Idylor' InomaS 3. Bond, James x.
brlen, John Rosenfeld, Jeremiah
Aynch, CHARLES Anderson, John Roth,
robert Y. Hayne and L. B. Hakes.
rms Is the final action in a matter
mat mas caused much bitter feeling ir
democratic circles, and w. H. Alvord,
chairman of the Democratic State Cen
tral Committee, addressed a vigorous
protest to Secretary of State Brown
against any parties being allowed to file
q certlflcate of nomination of Electors
on which the words, Democrat,
Democracy or Democratic" appear,
9hat may be mistaken by the voters OF
the State for the principles, faith or be-
lief Of the Democratic party OF the
State or United States.
Secretary Brown replied that he did
not consider it within his province to
decide or to determine party organiza-
tions, and that therefore it was his
DUTY to file them.
The Prohibitionists are engaged in a
similar dispute with the National Pro
hibition party, which also wishes to
file its nomination by petition for Elect
ors.
Mr.. Brown was seen by a Record
Union reporter yesterday after the
filing of the National Democratic ticket
and gave his reasons for allowing it to
be filed.
Secretary Brown quotes the decision
OF the Supreme Court of Nebraska,
June =, 1896, which says:
l. The Secretary of State will not de-
eide which of two rival conventions of
the same political organization is the
regular one.
, Where such rival conventions NOM
mate candidates and certify such NOM
nations in due form, the Secretary Of
State must certify such nominations to
the several County Clerks, and not as
sumo to inquire into the regularity Of
the respective nominations.
3 The question as to which faction
is the true representative of the party
organization is rather political than
judicial
An authority quoted in the decision is
in the case of the People VS.. District
Court, IS Col. 2631; Pac. Rep. 339, in
which it was held that where two sets
of nominations, both by conventions
purporting to have been held by the
same political party, and each in con-
formity with the law are certified tC
the Secretary of State, he has no power
TO decide between them, but should GER
tify both tickets to the County Clerks in
order that both may be printed in the
official ballots. 1t is not the province
OF either executive or judicial officers
to give official sanction to the mere
course, regularity or genuineness of
any political organization.
BY pursuing this course, the merits
of the opposing candidates will be SUBJ
1nitted to the people-the tribunal un-
der our system of Government that
must ultimately pass upon such ques-
tions The conclusion that the Secre.
tary Of State should, under the circum-
stances, certify both sets of nomina- l.
tions to the County Clerks to be printed
upon the official ballots is in harmony
with the rule Of construction which re-
Duires the courts in cases of doubt be-
tween two constructions to follow that
which will afford the citizen the great
est liberty in casting his ballot"
In Kellogg VS.. Hickman, II Col. 256
Allen VS. Glynn, II Col. 33S, the court
thought that light weight should be at
tached to the argumentthat voters may
be deceived by having two tickets OF
the same party before the people.