The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-10-05

Views TerseIy-GrOunds of tho
PrOhibitiOnists Strong. but ua
Reached the Conclusion That the
just Thing to Do Was to Give
the Union Ticket Second Place.
Attorney General Childs yesterday
gave out his opinion in regard to the
oroer OF placing the parties on the
| state ballot, ruling that the nominees
or the Democratic and Peoples party
are entitled to the position which their
united vote at the last election would
entttle them to If they were considered
as one political party. This, Mr.. Childs
observes, is not strict reading Of the
letter or the election law, but, in his
Judgment, the fair and liberal inter-
probation or an anomalous situation.
Mr.. Childs states his conclusion and
the process by which he arrives at II
| thus
Hon. Albert Berg, Secretary Of State
| Sir: l beg to acknowledge receipt of vour
communication Of the 2Sth ut., in which
request is made that 1 advise you as 10
| the position on the state ballot to which
the nominees of the Democratic Peoples
and other political parties are entitled.
| In
1896 ana the present year the Democratic
and Peoples parties placed the same names
upon their respective tickets and that It is
now impossible to determine the number
OF votes cast at the last general election bv
| electors aff1liating with either of the said
| parties. 1t is, therefore, insisted on behalf
| of the committee representing the Prohibit
ton party that it's candidates are entitled to
the second place upon the official ballot II
the position thus assumed is tenab!e Il must
| follow that neither of the other parties
above named is entitled to have its certiA-
Gates OF nomination received and fled by
| you serious question is thus presented
| as 1t affects not only the state ballot but
also the county ballots, which are required
to be conformed thereto in the matter Of
| the arrangement Of the names of candidates
| thereon.
The grounds upon which the Prohibition
party bases its claim to the second place
appeal with great force to my judgment and
| should prevail unless it can properly be
said that there was not an Endorsement Of
! candidates by either of the other Of said
parties. The statute providing for the ar
! rangement of names upon the state ballot Is
so far as material, as follows:
1.-The first name printed for each office. or
group of names, If more than one is to be
voted for for the same Office shall be that
| of the candidate Of the political party which
at the last preceding general state election
| polled the largest number of votes; the same
to be determined by the average vote re-
ceived by such Of It's candidates as were not
| indorsed by any other party"
| 1t is notorious fact that the Democratic
and Peoples parties acted contemporaneous
| ly, and, through the Intervention Of confer
ence committees, agreed upon and nominated
the same candidates. The chairman of each
convention prepared, in due form, a certif-
cate of nomination, which was presented to
and filed by the secretary of state I am m
able to escape the conclusion that if we are
to treat the two parties as distinct entities
the facts presented establish a case of in
dorsement within the statute. But If they
| are to be so regarded, then each has delib-
erately committed political suicide. No such
| conclusion should be reached il 1t can DOS
| sibly be avoided. From the very nature of
| the subject, courts long since adopted the
| view that statutes regulative OF popular cleo
tions should be literally construed con-
structon which must result in deprving two
great political parties of official recognition
and nullify the action Of their respective
state conventions would result in great po-
! Htical disturbance and bring the law into
| disrepute I am therefore constrained to dis
| regard strict and narrow rules Of construc-
| ton, elsewhere appropriate, as unsuited to
| the subject under consideration.
| In view of the fact that the two parties
| selection of candidates, you should now treat
| them, In the preparation of the Official bal
| lot, as single entity, and give the names
| OF the candidates such position thereon as is
| justified by the vote cast at the last preced-
| ing general state election.
Another question at once arises How Is
| that vote to be ascertained?
The statute has made no provision for ac-
| quiring record Of votes disclosing the po-
| Etical afiliation of voters. With that it has
no concern. The candidate is elected who
receives the highest number OF votes cast
In determining the relative position of the
| names of the parties in question, you will
| be justified in treating the vote cast for their
candidates at the last preceding general cleo
| tion as the vote poled by a political party.
| If that vote is second In numerical strength
| to that polled at such election by the Re-
| publican party, the names of the candidates
! Of the Democratic and Peoples party should
| be given corresponding place on the official
| ballot.
| l am well aware that the conclusion above
| reached is not consonant with a strict OBJ
| servance Of the literal terms of the statute
| 1t is, however in accord with the spirit of
| the law and amply justified by an anomalous
| situation and the grave consequences which
| 1t avoids. If 1t were merely a question
| whether the names of the said cand dates
| should have the second or the third p,aca
upon the ballot, it would be of compara-
| lively slight Importance; but, in my view,
they are either entitled to the second place
or to no place. l am very respectfully
Attorney General.