The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-10-26
CTS TICK EFT LEGAL
The Court or Appeal. Cphoids the Decision or
the Lower Courts.

the Lower Courts.
ALBANY. Oct. 25.-The Court of Appeals to-
day heard m on tho appeal from tho
decisions OF the lower courts, holding that tho
nominations for office in Greater New York
made by the Citizens Union were legal. Roger
NJ. sherman and StillmanF F. Kneeland appeared
for tho appellants, while the Citizens Union,
az respondent, was represented by Horace f.
Deming, Joseph Larocque. Simon Sterne. and
William b. Hornblower.
When the session OF the court opened at 10
o'clock Mr.. Sherman asked that arguments on
the appeal be heard at once. He explained tho
urgency OF the case, saying the Interpretation OF
the law by the Court of Appeals was needed. that
the New York city Police Commissioners might
not be embarrassed in deciding what nominees
were entitled to q place on the official ballot.
The Court agreed to hear the appeal. but Chief
Judge Andrews said that only fifteen minutes
would be allowed each side for argument, as is
usual with motions. Counsel for the appellants
said that the main objection to the independent
nominations filed by the Citizens Union related
to the insuf1ciency Of the proof contained in the
notarial certificates attached to the nominating
petitions. They argued that the provisions OF
the statute governing independent nominations
were mandatory rather than directory. The
proof of the signature and oath Of the nomi-
nator. 1t was argued, should be as complete as to
knowledge and Identification as that required
by statute in q conveyance OF real estate. and
name or other efficient designation the persons
referred TO in the certificate. These specific OBJ
%}ections to the notar!al certificates were made
by Mr.. Sherman:
There is no proof that the notary either knew
%ho signed the certitIcai,es and made n oath
thereof to him. There is no proof that all the
names and addresses written down in the ecrtin,
therein designated. There Is no proof in the
certificate Of the identity OF a single signer. and
oa aSH as n s=ffi 1RpsdH"" 'n Mr. a she Pr .ns co T,fners :o0k
There ia no sense in the suggestion that per-
Of The regular parties should have more license
or be less under surveillance than those whoart
these certificates do not come within either
the letter or spirit Of the statute, which was in
t tSa1 no no n. Pse1vfi wroS npfn Te Ipon tb q pps socenafe
could POSSIBLY screen themselves from an indict-
sSonId for be- dRslinreS vo saa that such certificate
Horace f. Deming. in arguing for the respond
ent. said that the provisions of the Election law
zens' Union certificate OF nomination exactly
followed the express requirements OF the
When tho arguments were concluded Chief
Judge Andrews announced that the Court Ind
decided that the order Of the lower courts should
cisi9n the Chief. Judge said:
cate of nomination the exact provisions OF the
statute were not followed but 1t Is claimed that
these provisions should be construed strictly
for tho purpose of determining whether a sufi-
cient number OF electors as required by tho
statute have truly stated their names and resi-
dences. This statute should be literally con-
strued. and in any event we disagree with the
counsel for the appellants that the certificate OF
nomination does not contain with accuracy all
the statements the statute requires"
Secretary Of State Palmer said today that this
decision OF the Court of Appeals indicates III t
his decision declaring legal the United De-
mocracy's certificate nominating II candidate
for Chief Judge I the Court OF Appeals would
have been sustained by the Court Of Aprenis
adverse decision. The Secretary said the same
ques ions raised against Mr.. Lows certificate
OF nomination wcrc involved in the United De-
| mocrRcY CnntAai.