The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-08-20
AGAINST JOHN C. SHEEHAN.
REJECTION OF Hrs LIST OF ELEC-
TON OFFICERS UPHELD IN COURT.

Justice Fitzgerald Holds that No Case
Has been Established for Interfer-
enoe With the Tammnny Executive Com
mittee'H Action In tho Ninth District.
John c. sheehan's application for man
damus to compel the acceptance OF his list OF
election officers in place OF that submitted
from the Ninth Assembly district by Frank J,
Goodwin. who is mpeting with Sheehan for
the Tammnny leadership OF that district was
dismissed by Justice Fitzgerald in the Su-
preme Court yesterday. The mandamus was
sought against Daniel F. Mcmahon. as chair
man OF tho Executive Committee OF Tammany
Hall. to compel him to certify the Sheehan list
as the authentic list and to require the Police
Commissioners to file the Sheehan list when
OF scertiied. The Police Com mlssioners had
already filed the Goodwin list.
The burden Of the argument OF ex Judge Roger
A. Pryor. who appeared In behalf of Sheehan.
was that the central body OF the organization
had no right either By custom or the election
law to dictate to the Assembly districts whom
they should name as election inspectors. Mr..
Sheehan only asked In his district for home
rule, which had always been accorded to the
different districts. Mr.. Pryor said. As the
leader OF the Ninth Assem- bly, district Mr.. Shee-
han contended he had the right to submit tho
list OF election officers and that Chairman
Mcmahon had only to perform the perfunetory
act Of certifying the list he received from the
leader.
Delaney NicoI. In behalf Of the oreaniza-
ton. urged that the election law contained no
such provision as that alleged and that the
usages Of the organization permitted review
Of the lists submitted from the different dis
tricts by the executive body. The opinion OF
Justice Fitzgerald runs:
THE complaint alleges that the respondent,
Mcmahon. as Chairman OF the Executive Com
mittes OF the New York Democratic County
Committee. has filed with the Police Board an
unauthorized and irregular list Of persons for
Democratic election officers In the Ninth As
sembly district. and summary process Ia in
voked under the provisions Of the primary
election law (sec. 2. chapter 437. laws OF 1891
directing the said Mcmahon to substitute
what 1t is commended. is the authorized and
regular list OF names. and further. that from
the su bsttuted list the Police Board be direct
cd to appoint the election officers.
From the papers submitted on both sides II
appears that the Democratic party in this
county is organized with general committees
in each one Of the Assembly districts therein
comprised. County General Committee. and
an Executive Committee. consisting Of ono
member from each OF the Assembly districts.
The Assembly district is the unit Of represent
tation and all powers are therein reserved ex-
cept such as. for the general welfare OF the
party as whole. are surrendered to the Gen.
eral County Committee and the Executive Com
mittee. Complainant 10 the executive ember
from the Ninth district and respondent Nc
Mahon is Chairman Of tho Executive Com
mttee.
The Executive Committee by resolution. q
q duly convened meeting thereof. created q
subcommittee called the Committee on Flee
tion OF Offlcera.' and invested this last men
toned body with authority to supervise the
selection OF election Officers giving 1t. in the
words Of the resolution, full power to act in
the matter 1t IL not denied that every district
was represented. or had the opportunity OF be-
ing represented. at this meeting. and by no one
does It appear was the action OF the meeting
challenged upon either Of the questions Of
power or propriety. 1t can only. therefore. be
reasonably inferred that such action was In
conformity with ancient usage. which eonsti-
tuted the law Of the party.
1T further appears from the answering az
fldavits that this committee rejected the list Of
names presented In behalf OF the com plainant
and took certain steps to provide for the va
cancies resulting from such rejection. The
reasons which induced the committee to take
such action are set forth at length In the az
fidavits. and need not be alluded to hero. Tho
complainant can scarcely claim that they are
immaterial particularly In view OF the lengthy
and vigorously worded affidavit fled by him In
reply
MY attention has been called to the matter
OF Buttling vs. Dady. but it has no bearing up
on this ISSUE for the reason that the facts pre-
sented upon that appl cation and passed upon
by the learned court. were widely different
from those disclosed by the record before me-
The com plainant has failed to esta blish a case
calling for the intervention OF the court and
these proceedings must. therefore. be dis
missed"
The charges referred to in the opinion
against Sheehan we're to the effect that he was
acting adversely to the party.