New-York tribune., 1901-10-22
BEHRMAN'.S APPEAL = WINS.
JUSTICE LAWRENCE's DECISION AS TO
FUSION ALDERMAN CANDIDATE
OVERRULED.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
yesterday reversed the decision OF Justice Law
renee in the of John II. Behrman. candidate
for alderman in the FOrty-fourth District in Man.
haitian and The Bronx The opinion written by
| Justice Hatch. with Justices Ingraham, O'Bren
and Mclaughlin coneurring. Justice Van Brunt
dissented The court ordered that writ OF man
darnus should be issued against the Board of Elec-
tons compelling the board to file the petition or
Behrman
BehrGnan the candidate the fusion ticket,
but the board held that the petition filed did not
have the requisite number of signatures. Justice
Lawrence upheld the board. deciding that no pro-
vision had been made for filing petitions OF inde-
pendent nominations for aldermen.
The opinion of Justice Hatch says in part:
The decision OF the Special Term is based. ap-
term, upon the proposition that the Elections law
ISectlon 90 makes no provision for independent
Ihe once or alderman nor aldermanic district Is
mentioned in the statute, and therefore there is
source of authority for the making filing of GER
tiheates of independent nominations in such cases.
The theme of Section 81 Is quite plain, and il is
evident that 1T the legislative intent TO confer
the right TO make independent nominations In the
State at large and every civil division thereof
where an officer to be elected the intent being
right to make nominations for every Office be
filled at any election whether it be State officer
or or one selected from the smallest division of the
state Such being the intent, it is plainly evident
nate particular division is of small consequence
where the purpose Is TO confer the right upon a
gwen NUMBER or electors To nominate q particular
officer. Under such circumstances IL Is "A familiar
rule Of construction for courts TO give force and
effect to the intent of the legislature even though
X involves the disregard of some words and the
insertion of others, constituting the languat e
used viii permit of a conclusion In accordaIFe
with such intent.
Applying these rules of construction 10 the sec
tion in question. have difficulty In reaching
the conclusion that the provision for nomination Of
candidates for public Office to be voted for only by
electors of a town or ward OF a city or village,
embraces within its scope the aldermanic district
another such civil division it, in fact. II be en-
braced therein and form part thereof. To hold
otherwise would be to deprive the body of electors
which the statute being competent to
make nomination from presenting candidates 10 be
voted for in such civil division. and this would
nufy the plain intent of the legislature. TO con-
fer upon the respective bodies of electors such
right. A literal construction OF the language of
Paragraph 81 relating to the nomination of cand-
dates 10 be voted for in wards would authorize in
dependent nominations in four adermanic districts
and deny the same right in the other sixty mine.
Such result would be palpably absurd. and the
construction of statute which works palpable
absurdity will ALWAYS be avoided
It follows. II these views are sound, that the
number Of qualified electors essential 10 make n
nomination within a ward sufficient 10 make a
nomination for Office In a division less than the
ward. hut contained within IT, In the present case
the certificate Is signed by l30 electors and was
therefore sufficient TO place the candidate in
ination for alderman, and IN became the duty Of
the Board OF Elections 10 file such certificate as
an independent nomination.