Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1900-10-31
BOTH NAMES co ON
Judge Ramsay Denies M. J.. Nc
Eniry's Application for an
Injunction.
SAYS HE HAS no JURISDICTION
Candidates Printed on Ballot
Each Entitled to Three
Votes.

Of the attorneys in the case, judge +.
D. Ramsay, in the circuit court, st 3
O'Clock yesterday afternoon an
nounced his refusal to assume juris-
diction in the Thirty-third senatorial
district democratic minority repre-
sentative nomination contest. The
secretary of state, in accordance with
the authority vested in him, Judge
Ramsay said, had ordered the names
of both NJ. j. McEniry and j. II.
Andrews printed on the ballot. and
it was not for the court ts in
terfere with his official acts. By the
denial Of the restraining order against
| the county clerks printing Mr.. An
| drews' name on the ballot is insured
the unusual election feature of two
democratic candidates fer minority
representative, each entitled to three
votes.
Mr.. McEniry's petition having been
denied, Mr.. Andrews did not apply
for an injunction to prevent the print
ing of Mr.. McEniry's name on the
ballot as democratic candidate, as
he intended doing in case a favorable
ruling was made on his opponents
application. Mr.. McEniry will not 90
further with the law; neither will Mr..
Andrews. 1t is up to the people.
Andrews Has Gone Too Far.
The ARGUS places the name of Mr..
Andrews in the proper column among
the list of democratic candidates, as
it did that of NJ. j. McEniry at the
time he was certified to the county
clerk. and concerning which no formal
intervention on the part of the courts
was evoked.
In the case of MIR. Andrews, how
ever, THE ARGUS pursucs this course,
not as indicative of Endorsement of |
his candidacy under the existing cir
cumstances, but as an evidence of ac-
ceptance of conditions as they are |
and of respect for the process of law
employed, which the courts have not |
seen tit to disturb. In other words, |
The ARGUS does not assume to place |
it's own convictions and preferences |
above those that conditions and the |
peculiar operation of the law have |
construed as the proper expression Of /
the democratic party in the two /
counties comprising the SD senatorial |
district.
There can be no question but that
a law that.Permits more votes to be cast
for candidates on any ticket than the
party is entitled to cast, is lamentably
weak. Neither is there any question
that the same weakness in law that
makes such state of affairs possible
permitted the will of the majority
composing the senatorial convention
of the democratic party of the SD
district to be throttled and deprived
of legitimate expression. The posi-
BILE phases in the election law de-
have made the holding of con-
ventions a farce, if it is possible, as
has been the case in the present in
stance, for the minority to prevent, by
sharp practices, the convention from
doing its duty, and then continue to
optrude itself upon the party even to
confusion in that party
in the exercise of the elective privi-
Iege.
Vital Principle.
The vital principle involved in the
legislative question is the right of
majority. The sense of the ma
iority in the senatorial convention,
of all that went before, re-
EardIess OF previous sentiment or
in the matter of local or
preferences, was favorable
to Mr.. McEniry- Yet the party finds
itself, even on the day of election,
with the same annoying,
course of procedure that
invalidated the legally constituted
and has since proven
4 source of party vexation and dis
cord.
The ARGUS for its own part does
not indorse such tactics, but it is
anxious, nevertheless, that the party
should, now that the situation has
assumed the shape that it has, make
is choice.
Complicated Situation.
OF course the fact that both Mr.. .
and Mr.. Andrews are to APP