Las Vegas daily optic. [volume] (Las Vegas, N.M.) 1880-1908, 1903-04-09
THURSDAY EVENING, APRIL


The Optlc feels That Its duty To the
public requires it to review the de-
cision recently handed down by the
Esquibel VS.. Chavez. With all due de-
ference TO the court, We believe that
a mere statement OF the facts in the
case and the issue presented will al
ford ample justification for criticisins
the conclusion reached by the court.
Stated broadly, the issue in the
case is whether the ticket of the in
dependent republican party was ille-
gal and void because of having
printed at its head the party emblem
of a flag in the hands OF an angel; the
republican party claiming the ri3ht 70
the exclusive use OF the American
flag as an emblem. :.
Our law permits a political party in
convention assembled to adopt by res
olution a party emblem TO be usei
at the head of its ticket and after the
fling in the probate clerks office OF
a certificate OF the adoption OF sdSa
emblem as required by law, no 9th
err political party can adopt the same
emblem 10 be used upon its ticket
On October %. 1902. the republican
party adopted the American flag as
it's party emblem but did not file the
certificate required by law until Oct.
10Th. In the meantime. and before the
republican party secured the exclu
sive right to use the American flag as
an emblem, by fling tae required tes-
~tiicate, the independent republican
party held its convention anu adopted
as its emblem an angel carrying a
flag flowing in the opposite direction
from hat of the flag adopted by the
republican party, and a ticket OF the
republican party containing the
names of all its candidates ala 4
imprint OF the emblem adopted by IL
was filed before the republican patty
filed its certificate as require by
law. Furthermore when the i%ndepend
ent republican party was organized,
which was nearly a month befare the
republican party held its convention
or adopted its emblem, the independ-
ent republican party adopted the an
gee holding a flag as its emblem and
caused the party platform with the
emblem at it's head to be printed and
1000 copies were distributed through
out the county, thereby refutinS any
charge of any intention 10 deceive.
The coart. how ever, held that the
tickets oi the independent republican
party were void. After thoroughly
studying the case we are unable 10
find any justification for such a hold
ing.
Ii cannot be said that the republl-
can party ever acquired the right to
the exclusive use of the American
flag as it's emblem because the law
does not give thai right until the en-
blem has both been adopted and a
certificate of such adoption a been
duly filed. This va decided by Judge
Mcmillan in the Socorro election con
test. Until both taese Things have
been done any other party nay adopt
the same emblem and in such case
both parties would nave h concur
REM right. but neither the exclusive
risnt. Is use such emblem. T~aere.Sls
the independent republican party had
an equal right to use the emblem
which it adopted V q though 1t were
the same as the emblem adopted by
the republican party. However, the
statute makes il unlawful only to use
the same emblem. and il cannot be
contended with II sincerity that the
emblems of the republican party and
the independent republican party
were the same. however similar they
might be. The case. therefore. cannoi
come within the statutory prohibition
but resolves itself into amere question
of whether the embleEs were so sim
liar that the emblem Of the republE
can Independent party would nave
tendency to deceive and liz actual
ly deceive the voters and lead them
to believe that it was the ticket d
the TepuDIiCdu party. SPO1 tAS H1N'
however. il was conclusively proven
that no such deception tcok place ar
that the similarity Of em5lems wa.
not such as to have 4 tendency TO de
ceive. Ii was stipulated by counsel 10
the respective candidates that there
were 200 tickets of the Independent
republican party voted at the cleo
ton and that Chavez was eleetc;
by a majority Of 152 votes; some nine
fy voters testified that they vote
the independent republican ticket
knowing il to be the ticket OF tina
party and that they were not deceiy
ed by the emblem or anything els
appearing upon the ticket; therefor
if there were only 200 votes of tn
republican independent party cas-
and ninety of the voters who vote'
that ticket were not deceived by tn
ticket. it might be conceded that tn
remaining 10 voters We're deceive
and still Chavez would have receive
a majority of iorty-two votes. 1t !
probable however, that the rcmain.a
10 voters were not deceived and tina
Chavez legal majority should be ID
To an independent observer