The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-09-06

| IN memorandum handed down with
| the order says he believes the testi-
mony discloses fraud and an attempt
at extortion.
| The peremptory ORDER which was
! handed down yesterday, was, at once
communicated to Deputy Auditor
| Drummond, who has charge of the pri-
mary ticket, and the name was istrick-
en- before the copy was consigned to
| the printer The order issued was the.
result of mandamus proceedings
brought by Coroner Arthur w. Miller
to compel Auditor Johnson and John
! Miller to show cause why the name
should not be stricken from the ballot.
Dr. Miller alleged conspiracy and that
there was no bona fide resident Of
Ramsey county named j. L. Miller.
Decision Was Expected.
The defendant, Miller, admitted he
was paid SIS for the use of. his name
| as candidate, but his attorney,
Charles Brown, insisted that his intent
to become candidate was established;
| that the requirements of the law had
been met and that, regardless of ul-
| terror motive, the name should be al
| lowed to remain on the ticket. The.
decision Of Judge Otis was generally
expected and Mr.. Brown yesterday,
although taking vigorous exceptions
to the spirit of the order, said he was
unaware of a disposition to further
fight the case. Mr.. Brown said:
''The decision is far-reaching and
dangerous. 1t gives the auditor power
to reject the name of any candidate
whom he may believe is acting in bad
faith"
The memorandum handed down by
Judge Otis is the first utterance of the
courts on this particular phase of the
primary election law and is especially
important in that it may establish
| precedent.
The Memorandum.
The testimony received upon the hear
| ing to correct the ballot, aside from the
lnferenceS to be, drawn from it, discloseS
without dispute and chiefly from respond
ent's own lips, in, brief, among others the
following facts:
Respondent at the time of making and
Hing with the auditor in statutory form
an affidavit declaring in terms his candi-
dacy for coroner, was a buggy washer in
livery stable. He had never before
sought or held any public office. So far
as appears, his acquaintance was limited
TO those about or who patronized the
| known as John, or John Miller. While le-
| gally eligible, he would seem to be want
! ing In all the qualifica tons fitting one for
| the important and responsible duties of
! coroner in a county of this magnitude
| On or abouttAug 26, 1902, one Joseph
| Gross, an undertaken, offered him SIS If
he would make and file the affidavit. He
| consented, and together they went to
lawyers office to have it prepared. AZ
though requested by the lawyer to give
his full name he refused so to do, but in
nTlly f1n fv,ftt ~ 1A+%
| his given name, making and subscribing
| the affidavit in and by the name of J. L.
Miller, and by that name he answers the
petition herein, as respondent. /, He says
ms name as written and spelled Is John
| Leo Mellier. t.7S@
Then he and Gross go to the auditors
ONCE, the latter apparently carrying the
affidavit and leaving it with the auditor
| Gross paid the filing fee of $10 Further
than this, the respondent has apparently
done nothing towards declaring himself a
! candidate for nomination. He neither in
formed his employer nor his associates of
| his action. When petitioner in his effort
to ascertain who this j. L. Miller was. ap-
| piled to him for information, he positively
! denied that he was the man or that he
had ever made or filed such affidavit or
that his name was ]. L. Miller; Instead
! stroVe to conceal his identity.
Suggests Attempted .Extortion.
I think the evidence also fairly dis
closes an effort on his part whether sug-
| geSted by Gross or not does not appear,
| to extort money from petitioner as
condition for withdrawal 1t is perfectly
manifest that if his name as he has given
! 1t, viz, j. l.. Miller is left on the ballot
| in this form it will create confusion in
| the minds of the voters and prove detri-
mental to. petitioner, who in good faith is
| seeking the nomination
The very fact that he has given in his
name as j. L. Miller, when in fact it is
John Leo Mellier, designedly using only
his initials in the filing and enormously
! spelling his surname, manifests an intent
| to cheat and defraud by confusing the
| voter as to the identity of the person
voted for as coroner and may well raise
| TO remove such confusion and prevent
| such threatened injury would to some
persons suggest the payment of a sub
| ference to be drawn from the facts and
conditions satisfy me beyond the perad-
! venture OF a doubt that the scheme of
in iniquity and that its purpose is dis
| honest fraudulent and corrupt, having for
its sole end and object petitioners hurt
Outrage Should be scotched.
| Such scheme should be scotched here
and now, that evil-doerS may be deferred
from like outrages upon honorable citizens
in good faith offering themselves as can
| public at large whom it is sought to de-
| ceive, and believe there is power in
| Lie law TO IIltS 6nU. 500
Section of the primary election law
! Gen. Sess. Law 1899, Oh. 349 as amend
ed by Gen. Session Laws 1901, Oh. 216)
primary shall file with the county aud
| itor IAN affidavit to the effect that 1t is
! bona fide his intention to run for the nom
| nation for such office. The section fur
Their provides that the affidavit may be
in substantially the form there given, but
which form does not in so many words
contain any allegation of intention fur
Their than mere declaration that the
! aff1ant is a candidate. / am satisfied that,
taking the section as a whole, if it ap-
pears that the affiant does not in good
| faith intend to run for such nominat ton
| he has no right to file such affidavit and
his name should not be upon the official
ballot. The affidavit implies. that the
| been complied with and if the affiant
| is not acting in good faith, as I must
/ find from the evidence, his affidavit is
| false and insufficient toS-authorize the
placing of his name upon the ballot.
Court May Determine Intent.
For the purposes of this case con-
| cede what respondents counsel claims,
that we may not look into the intent or
purpose, whether it be corrupt or other
wise, with which a man is running, for a
nomination, but this does not preclude the
court from determining whether it Is or
| was respondents bona fide intention" to
| run for the nomination for coroner, and to
| determine this question the affidavit is not
| conclusive. 80
The evidence in connection with all
| the circumstances thereby disclosed and
satisfy me that respondent has not, and
! never had a bona fide Intention of run
ming for Office as coroner; that for a
money consideration he has merely lent