The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1898-09-22

ateu ny the Montour county Convcn-
ton with power to appoint, had died
before making any appointment, and
that those who pretended to act as
conferrees were nominated after the
Judges death by his son.
Even had Judge Ikeler appointed
conterees conference after his death
and before the vacancy caused there
by had been filled under the printed
rules of the Montour county demo-
cracy was illegal and void. Little,
argued Mr.. Olmsted, had put the rule
in operation by demanding meeting
OF the county committee to fill the
vacancy, but finding that he could not
control the committee he had got this
rump conference together the evening
before and attempted thus to over
throw the rules and the will of the
Democracy. i
The County Committee merely
stood in place of the County Conven-
tion, and whenever any candidate
named by the latter resigned or dies
the County Committee was authoriz-
ed to fill the vacancy, and had done
SO by nominating Herring to take
Judge lkeler's place before the con-
ference.
Robert Snodgrass made the argu-
ment for Little. He contended that
the evidence showed that it was
the intention of Judge Ikeler in his
lifetime to appoint McHenry and that
McHenry's subsequent service as
conferree constituted sufficient ac.
ceptance. He denied that the rule
authorizing the County Committee to
I'LL any vacancy on the ticket applied
to more than county offices not re.
quirlng nomination by another county
also. He thought ticket meant the
same as ballot and Judge Ikeler's
name was never authorized to go on
the ballot because he had been nom-
mated by one county only.
He contended that while Ikeler had
received more delegates than Little in
Montour county, nevertheless Little
had received large proportion of the
popular vote. He:was surprised that
Little had been accused OF any trick
cry in the premises.
Mr.. Gilbert concluded the argu-
ment for Herring. He said Ikeler
had been nominated and was on the
ticket subject to the action of the
conference only. His death made
vacancy on the ticket which the
County Committee had right to fill
and had filled by nomi mating Herring.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
On Saturday Judge Mcpherson
filed the following opinion:
This certificate, which declares Mr.. Little
to be the Democratic candidate for Presi-
dent Judge OF the twenty. sixth district, pro-
ceeds from body composed of four persons,
OF whom two had an undisputed title to rep.
resent the County of Columbia, and two
Judge Divel and Mr.. McHenry- asserted an
equally valid right to represent the County of
Montour. The right of the gentlemen
named is now challenged by the objector,
and the question thus presented must first
be decided for if they had no authority to
act as conferrees, their attempted action was
nullity, no lawful conference has yet been
held, and no Democratic nomination for the
district has been made.
Their authority is said to be found in the
fact that Judge keller had appointed them
before his death. He had been regularly
nominated for President Judge by the Dem
ocratic Convention of Montour county, and
had been empowered to choose his own con-
terrees to meet the representatives of the
other county OF the district. If he exercised
this power in his lifetime and actually ap-
pointed the two gentlemen who appeared for
the County OF Montour, certain other ques-
tions arise for consideration but il he failed
to exercise this power, this ground alone is
decisive of the case. Whether the appoint
| ment was made, is question of fact, con.
cerning which we have heard and considered
good deal of evidence, but without much
difhcalty in reaching conclusion. 1t seems
TO US that the apparent conflict in the testi-
mony can be easily explained. 1t arises be.
cause Judge Ikeler's purpose to appoint is
sometimes looked upon as a purpose merely,
and sometimes as if he had already carried it
| into effect. / have no doubt that he fully
| intended to appoint DIR. McHenry and
| Judge Divel to be his conferrees, and that he
had spoken several times of such intention to
his sons and to some other persons. 1t is
not surprising that his intention should now
be regarded as substantially identical with
the act which he would probably have done
it he had lived, and that witnesses may con-
scientiously declare that he had actually
made the appointment, although in truth he
had done no more than determine to make
it. The connection between purpose and
&C: may be close, but the distinction is real
and important. The governor has not ap-
pointed to an Office, by virtue of mental
decision, to name one aspirant in preference
to the others; this looks to the future, and
if an actual present appointment does not
follow, the decision remains without effect
This is just what occurred in the case before
us Judge Ikeler had determined whom he
would appoint. He had had some prelimi.
nary consultation concerning their willing.
ness TO serve, but, for some reason or an.
other, he was postponing the actual appoint.
ment and death overlook him before the &C,