New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-10-18
THE POLICE BOARD UPHELD.
JUSTICE GAYNOR sUSTAINS ITS DECISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE CITIZENS
UNION NOMINATING GER


Justice William j. Gaynor has upheld the
New-York Police Board In its refusal to throw
out the Independent nomination OF the Citizens
Union OF the demand Of the representatives OF
the Republican machine. His decision was de-
livered yesterday to the lawyers represented In
the case On Saturday morning Roger NJ. Sher-
man. representing the organization, appealed
to Justice Gaynor to reverse the decision OF the
Police Commissioners, contendng that the nomi-
mating papers Of the Citizens Union were filled
with fraudulent names and were irregularly GER
thed. In the course of his argument Mr.. Sher-
man caused CONSERVATION among his Repub-
lican hearers by sneerng at the residents or
the Bowery for signing the petitions. and at the
Citizens Union for accepting Bowery signatures
on It's papers Mr.. Sherman was assisted by
General Stnan F. Kneeland in his argument
In behalf Of the machine while Joseph La
rocoue Simon Sterne and William b. Hornblower
represented the Citizens Union.
The following is the text OF the decision:
1t is part Of history OF the State that at the
time our present election statute was first enacted
municipal government had generally fallen and
settled into the control Of dishonest and criminal
persons, who were mere politicians by trade ana
without any lawful occupations. and VINO mad no
interest I'm government In politics except to OBJ
tain opportunity to enrich and aggrandize them
tained and held such control by means or their
control OF party organizations and of system
OF voting which exposed the voter to the over
sight and strong influence Of such organizations
at the polls. In this way they were enabled 10
nominate and elect 10 high Office. not themselves,
but individuals of better name and fame. willing.
however TO be their tools when elected. and
10 place allegiance TO those who thus put them In
honorable office above official obligation and duty
10 the cOmmllnlty
The government OF many OF cities had In
this way become so low. base and corrupt that no
account of the like could be found In past his
tory except In the Of governments and ma
tions which fast totterng TO their fall. either
from the general debasement or the general despair
OF their citizens.
II was with the avowcd purpose OF helping the
electors to lift government out Of this condition
that our election statute passed. Its object
make Independent nominations and inde-
penden; voting not only possible but easy to en-
able every one 10 vote freely according TO his
manhood and conscience. Such object was ex-
pressed in It's first title which designated II IAN
act TO promote the independence OF voters at pub
lie elections"
The foregoing conditions have been called "a
mind only 10 put In contrast with the public policy
out OF which our election statute grew the conten
ton in this case very ably presented. that the pro
visions Of that statute now under review should be
technically and strictly construed with the para
mount view OF preventing the cost to the public o
printing too many nominations upon the ballots
The two decided which cited are some
authority for such contention. but they are not con
trolling To put such question OF expense ABOVE
the great purpose Of the act. In constituting It's pro
visions. would be q grave misconception. To prin
nominations like these is a matter OF small ex
pense: to reject them would prevent many from
! conveniently voting they wish 10. and Nigh
sometimes destroy great movement struggling tt
prevent government from becoming mere eupJec'
| OF individual spoil
! Ths is a review under Section IS OF the Electior
! law OF the decision OF the Board OF Police Com
mssoners, that the nominating certificates or the
independent body named the Citizens Union are
valid. Among the objections enumerated in the
very able argument Of General Kneeland. the chief
on, H. I'm the contention that such certificates are
insufficient and Invalid upon their face. for not
identifying the persons who sign them as the same
persons who make the oaths thereto
Section 81 OF the said law provides that such n
certificate Of nomination may be subscribed only
by electors residing In the territory or district for
which the nomination IS being made Ii requires
that Zach olcc.or who signs such certificate shall
add his place OF residence to his signature, and
make oath that he Is an elcctor, and has truly
stated his residence. II then requires that the
making Of such oath shall be proved by the certh
cate of the notary or other officer before whom II
IS taken. The certificate OF the oath In the prssen
case is that the persons who signed appeared De-
fore the notary, and that cach made oath tnat ne
Is an elector and truly stated his residence In the
nominating certificate. 1t literally follows the
statute IL does not state that the persons making
such ooth are known to the notary be the same
/ who so signed or that they signed In his presence
Tho certicat the oath does not therefore. iden
thy the signers of the certificate OF nomination
with the atlantis and ii might be difficult to prose
cute them for perjury. 1t is true this gap does
exist: but Il Is because It exists In the statute
itself II might be easy TO construe the statute 70
mean that the notarial certificate should show this
identity as is the rule with like certificates. but II
literally follows the words of the statute, ana thar
I II te
be any fuller 49,. A..
10 tho objection that the oath is only that the
sirner is an elcctor without stating that he Is ar
cector OF the territory or district for which tne
certificate OF nomination is made II is enough &c
saw that the Court will take judicial notice thai
the certificate OF nomination shows that fact by
the residence given, and the oath must De con
strued az made In reference 10 1t.
The other objections. II seems TO me, are EN-
/ br,ced in the disposition OF these two
The decision OF the Board OF Police Commission