The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-10-13

The Watson petition to have John r.
Jones nomination nullified was yester-
day quashed by the local court. Judge
Archibald dissented from the finding,
saying that he could not agree with
the other judges that the court had
no jurisdiction in the matter and that
the petition was defective.
The three judges made brief speeches
in delivering their opinions, as follows;
Judge Gunster-In the matter of the
nomination of John r, Jones for district
attorney, in which a motion was made
yesterday before my brethren to quash
the petition, they inform me that they
were not able to agree, and 1t would be
necessary for me to give my opinion in
the matter. l do SO with some hesitation
because l did not hear the arguments of
counsel, but the question depends entirely
upon the petition before u.s.
The act of 1893 is very clear and specific
in regard to who has the right to file
certificates of nomination and nomina-
tion papers. The practice of this court
has been somewhat without any rule. OF
course we are never called upon TO decide
question until II comes before us. The
question now before us is whether or not
we have jurisdiction over this matter in
the form in which ii is presented to us.
| There seems to be the impression that
we have power to inquire into all matters
concerning nomination papers and GER
| tiliCates of nomination.
1 do not think so. The fourth section
| of the act of 1893 provides that "any OBJ
| iections filed to a nomination certificate
| or paper on account of the party or po-
| litical appellation used therein or in
volVing the right as defined by sections
| two and three Of this act to file such GER
| tificate or paper shall be decided by the
| court of common pleas on hearing as here
| matter provided" The sixth section OF
the act of 1898 provides that, "If the court
| decide that the certificate or paper OBJ
| jected to was not filed by the parties en-
| titled under this act to file the same, it
| shall be wholly void; but if it be adjudged
| defective only, the court Shall indicate
| the matters as TO which it requires amend
ment and the time within which such
| amendment must be made"
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION.
SO that the only question that we have
| any jurisdiction over is whether or not
the certificate is filed by the party who is
| entitled to file it. and the only objection
we can consider are objections filed to a
nomination certificate or paper on account
of the party or political appellation used
therein or involving the right to file
| such certificate or paper The petition
|
| into the qualifications OF the candidate
named therein and the motive which
prompted the delegates at the Republican
| convention in voting for him. l think we
| have no power or jurisdiction to inquire
into it, and therefore / am in favor Of
quashing the petition.
Judge Edwards--As Judge Gunster has
stated my brother, Judge Archibald, and
myself could not agree as to the proper
proceeding in this case, 1 have examined
the petition carefully and most of the de-
| Cisions of the courts OF common pleas in
| Pennsylvania touching the possible scope
of our inquiry into the actions of nomi-
mating conventions. 1t is true that the
act of assembly If it is followed literally
confines us to a very narrow and circum-
scribed limit. We can only inquire into
two things. These have already been
stated by Brother Gunster, and the sec
tion which states what we are to do when
the matter is brought to a court of COM
mon pleas states that we have the power
either to adjudge the certificate valid or
to declare it wholly void, and that the
only thing we can inquire into in doing
that is the question whether the GER
tiacate is filed by parties entitled to file
the same.
1t is true that in the Foley case, cited
by the attorney for the petitioner in this
case that Notwithstanding the Circum-
| SCrlDed limits designated by the act OF as
semDly we had the power to inquire into
the question whether delegate to a con,
vention was regularly and legally elected
l wrote the opinion in the Foley case, Dut
it was written after consultation with
Judge Archibald at least-I don't remem
Der now that Judge Gunster took any par
in it.
In that case there was a contest over
school directors, and it appears from tho
opinion written that the people who came
to the polls to vote either for the dele,
gates or the conferree, as it may have
been in that case. We're not citizens, ev
erybody was allowed to vote, boys, those
who had paid no taxes, foreigners who
had just arrived in the country, anybody
passing along the street would be taker
by the shoulders and brought in and al
lowed to vote That was a question tha
went to the regularity of the election o
the delegate to the convention, anC
we claimed then that under the ac
of assembly and l claim now, W,
had the power to ascertain whether dele
gates to a nominating convention were o.
were not regularly elected.