Omaha daily bee., 1899-02-16
HE READS HIS TITLE CLEAR
Connolly Defeats Kierstsad in the County
OommssiOnership Contest,
CONTESTANT TOO LATE WITH OBJECTIONS
Contestcc No Right TO Hnvc Ills Name
Appear Three Times on Ballot,
but Time for Taking Adj
vantage Has Passed.
CONTESTANT TOO LATE WITH OBJECTIONS

| County Judge Baxter has decided the Kier-
stead-Connolfy contest over the county com
mlssionership for the Second district In IA
! vor of MIR. Connolly.
There are three decisions OF the supreme
court OF this state" the Judge said, upon
which counsel could not agree owing to the
apparent conflict of opinion involved and ii
was only after careful study of these that
have reached my conclusions. These were
the cases of S. w. Christy against County
Clerk Herman w. Stein of Clay county. aris-
ing out of the election of a senator for the
Twenty-fifth senatorial district in November
| 1892, the mandamus proceeding brought by
T. ID. Sturdevant, gold democratic nominee
for governor, against John G. Allen. secre-
tary OF state, in September 1894 to compel
the secretary of state to designate the Stur-
deVant ticket as the regular democratic
ticket, and the case of j. c. Crawford against
| w. F. Norris over the judgeship of the
Eighth judicial district. Norris being the
judge-elect Chief Justice Maxwell wrote
the decision in the Stein case, Commissioner
Ragan that in the Norris case and Chief
Justice Post denied the mandamus which
Sturdevant asked for"
Reasoning by Baxter.
These decisions covered the pivotal con-
tention of the contestant, namely that the
ballots upon which Connollw's name appeared
three times and the voter had put cross
IN each of the squares after his name in
! each column should not be voted In the
Stein case Judge Maxwell. in a bit of reas-
oning acknowledged as mere obiter held
that candidate had a right to have his
name on the ballot as many times as there
were parties nominating him, the object
of the old Australian law being so the
court argued, not to build up parties, but
enable the eleCtor to vote intolligently and
TO prevent fraud. Judge Post in the AL
len case criticised this, but did not really
pass upon the question. He simply found
that 1t is not the duty of the secretary OF
state to determine which of two factions
is the regular party. However, with respect
to the point alluded to County Judge Bax-
ter said Judge Maxwelrs position had not
been that of a majority of the supreme
court and he did declare that 1t was the
purpose of the act Of 1891 to have the
name Of each candidate only once upon the
ballot. Upon this a basis Judge Baxter
held that the printing of the name of Con-
molly on the ballot as many times as par
ties of which he was the nominee was not
warranted by the law according to the posi-
tiOn taken by the supreme court.
But along with this there was another
important point that of raising objections
in time. In the Norris case Commissioner
Ragan held that the ballots had been
printed by the county clerk without pro-
test. The name of Norris was on them
three times as the candidate of three differ
ent parties. 1t would not be right to dis
franchise 1000 voters, reasoned Mr.. Ragan,
when the contestant had neglected to file
his objections in time, as he is required to
do by section 1877 of chapter XVI, the present
o1a low Tob
case and Judge Baxter made this the main
ground for deciding against Mr.. Kierstead.
No Fraud Alleged.
So far as the ballots were concerned where
the straight republican ticket had been voted
and the voter had then put cross in the
square opposite Connollys name Judge BaX-
ter found that the language of the raw dis
tinctly allowed this, both in a particular
section and in the schedule of instructions
to voters, and he had to interpret the law
as a whole and not in disjointed parts, he
said.
AS to the minor points that the bill had
not been signed by the governor and that the
law does not particularize with eHacttude
which sections are amended by it, Judge
Baxter held that it would not be rikely that
the contention about the lack of signature
would be upheld, and the supreme court had
gone on record, maintained by common
usage, as holding it to be sufficient if the
bill particularizes what is to be amended in
such a way that there can be no doubt about
the intention of the legislature.
There having been no question of fraud
raised in Kierstead's petition the court con-
frmed Connolly in the office. Summing up
he said Connolly had had no right to have
his name appear on the ballot three times
but the objections of the contestant had
come too late. They should have been made
previous to the election.