The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-10-18

number of votes, the same 10 be determi: ei
by the average vote received by such o. lis
candidates as were not Endorsed by any other
party"
The application which counsel makes of II is
statutory rule is substantially this: If the
vote actually polled by the Democratic and
Peoples party be excluded tho Prohibition
party confessedly poled the highest vote.
The combined vote of the two parties must
be exluded because each party endorsed all
of the candidates of the other hence there
is not unindorsed candidates voted for by
either party, and there could be of necessity
no average vote of the candidates of either
party, Who were not endorsed by the other
party" That is to say. although the two
parties voted for the candidates, who
IN fact received an average vote twenty times
larger than that given to the candidate of
the Prohibition party, yet legally the latter
polled the highest vote.
If such be the correct construction of the
statute 1t leads to absurd and unjust results.
1t may be safely assumed that whenever any
proposed construction application of the
state leads to such result it is wrong, for
such purpose cannot be imputed to the
Legislature. The conclusion claimed rests
upon the vulnerable premises that the statute
applies to cases where independent and
legal political parties separately nominated
identically the same ticket. Neither the words
OF the statute nor It's history Justify the
assumed premises. This statute was first
enacted in 1893. Prior to this time the posi-
don CT the names of party candidates the
ballot was determined by the order in which
the certificates of nomination were filed. Laws
of 1889. chap. 3, sec. %. then by laws Of 1891.
chap. 4. sec. IL. and lastly by the present
method. laws 1893 chap. 4, sec. 25. Prev
ously to the adoption in 1898 of the larger
number of votes polled by political party
tho basis for determining its place the
ballot there have been instances of individual
Endorsement Of one or more of the candidates
OF one party by another. notably, judicial
candidates. but there has been no case where
two independent parties have separately nom
mated complete duplicate ticket. Advised
by the past the legislature knew that 1t must
provide for cases of individual Endorsement,
but it had reason to anticipate the nom
nation of complete duplicate ticket by two
political parties maintaining separate organi-
cations. 1t Is, therefore, provided for the
former case, but not for the latter. The
language Of the statute in question also sup
ports this conclusion. The words used are
the same: THE largest number of votes
polled by a political party to be determined
by the average vote received by such OF its
candidates as were not Endorsed by any other
party" This language necessarily assumes
a case where part only Of the candidates
were indorsed. Our conclusion, then, is that
the statutory rule in question applies only
to cases OF individual Endorsements of the
candidates of political party by another
party, and not to a case like this one where
two parties SeVerally nominate the same
identical ticket.
Although In the later case there is no statu-
tory rule for ascertaining the approximate
vote polled by the respective parties, still the
position of the names of all candidates on
the ballot must be determined by the vote
poiled by their respective parties. There be-
ing no prescribed rule IN Sucn q case, Tue o.
hcers charged with the duty OF arranging the
official ballot may resort to any rule or means
to ascertain approximately the vote poled by
each party which he deems to be fair and
practicable. For example, he may apport1on
the combined vote between them on the basis
Of the average vote polled by each at the
general election next before the nomination
by them of a duplicate ticket and unless he
acts in the premises fraudulently or unfairly
or clearly on an improper or prejudicial basis,
his decision will not be disturbed by the
courts.
1t follows that the secretary Of state cor
rectly held in this case that the Prohibition
party did not poll at the last general election
the second largest vote and, therefore, 1t was
entitled to third place only on the official
ballot He was not at liberty in determining
the question to ignore the combined vote
polled by the Democratic and Peoples party
for the same ticket. In this particular case
it is unnecessary to make any apportionment
of the combined vote between the respective
parties because such vote was at least 140OGO,
while that of the Prohibition party did not
exceed 100. It is, therefore. absolutely GER
tain that one if not each of the two par
ties polled q greater number OF votes tnan
7 coo and the sole question here is as TO the
order in which the names of the candidates
shall be placed on the ballot, and 1t Is SUI
fcient for the purpose of this case that at
least one of the two parties nominating the
duplicate ticket poll more votes that the
Prohibition party not determining which one.
Order to show cause discharged on us
merits. Start. c. ].