Albuquerque daily citizen. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1895-1903, 1902-03-31
AN INJUNCTION.
Testing the Law of
Registration.
Claim That the Time Expired
March 20.
Suit Extended so as to include all
Wards.
CASE ON HEARING.

Judge Baker has all day been hear
ing an application for an injunction to
restrain members of the boards of reg
istration from adding any names to the
registration lists or erasing any from
them. The suit was brought by the re-
publicans and at first applied to the
Fourth ward only. This noon, on the
conclusion of the hearing, the suit was
extended to cover the boards in the
First, Second and Third wards and all
were ordered to appear in court this
afternoon and produce the registration
books.
The suit covering the First, Second
and Third wards was filed this noon
and is brought by Dr. Chamberlin. re-
publican candidate for city treasurer.
The suit in the Fourth ward is brought
by DR.. G. w. Harrison. republican can.
didate for council and was filed Satur
day.
The application for the Injunction
was made on Saturday afternoon and
the temporary injunction was allowed
by Judge Baker and was set for hear
ing at 10 o'clock this morning. DIR.
George w. Harrison. republican candi-
date for city council. was plaintiff in
the first case and w. X. Walton. John
Il. McCutchen and II. A. E. Picard
members of the board of registration
for the Fourth ward, were defendants.
The application set out that they were
appointed members of the board on
March 3 and under the law were re-
quired to register within ten days and
on the next day after the ten, to make
out list of those who have registered
which must be posted for six days.
rirc hof xx,h< 1. 10.
name is omitted may have it placed on
and protests may be entered against
those who have registered. The appli-
cation claims that after seventeen
days, no board has the right to add to
or erase from the list but that the de-
PENDANTS threaten and have threatened
to add names and erase others. The
application claims that the books
should be turned over to the city clerk
after the legal time has elapsed and
that in this case, the members having
been appointed March 8, the time
elapsed March 20. 1t is claimed the
list was not posted as required by law.
The application says that Walton and
McCutchen are of opposite political
faith to the plaintiff and they may
strike off enough names to change the
election. Ii was asked that they be
enjoined from changing the lists and
asking that they be certified as they
were on March 20.
The defendants answered by deny
ing that they ever said they would
change the lists in any way. They de-
MED that the list was not posted but
said it was. They denied it was their
intention TO strike off or add any
names or have it done and they said
they had closed the books at the prop
er time, under the instruction of the
city attorney, and the book is now in
the hands of the city clerk. They
asked that the injunction be dissolved.
w. b. Childers, United States attor-
ney. who appeared for DR.. Harrison,
said that he had heard the rumoIs and
before filing the papers he and John II.
Stingle went to the members of the
boards of registration and asked them
what they were going to do. They
asked Mr.. Walton if they intended to
add names or erase them, and he spe-
cifically and pointedly said they did in
tend to do so. He also so told DR.. Har-
rison. Mr.. Childers said he was abso-
lutely astounded TO hear them come in
and deny it. He said he contended
there should he ten days for registra-
ton, one for copying list to be post
ed, six for posting, one day for making
out the revised list and certifying it
to the city clerk.
Horton Moore, who appeared for the
defendants, said there was no dispute
as TO the law. but he and Mr. Childers
disagreed as to the date and he had
instructed the boards to begin March
12 and close March 81, while Mr.. Chill
ders held it was from March to
March 90.
Judge Baker remarked that the only
things before him was a charge which
was fatty denied. If the defendants
did not say what it was charged they
had, there was no reason why the in
junction should stand and they be put
TO the expense of costs.
Mr.. Childers said if testimony was
wanted ii could be given. If the de
PENDANTS had no thought or intention
of doing what was alleged, they should
have no objection TO the injunction
Judge Baker said if they did say the
things alleged, the injunction should
stand and to this Mr.. Childers replied
by saying three at least would swear
to it. Mr.. Stingle said they could prove
that names have been added and
stricken off. He said he could furnish
a list and show eight or ten names
We're added. Judge Baker said he
would hear evidence and Dr. Harrison
was called. He said Walton was in
the drug store and said the book would