Albuquerque daily citizen. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1895-1903, 1903-01-15

mark or designating device, and it
shall be unlawful for any person or
persons whatsoever after the adoption
and filing of such mark or designating
device to print or cause to be printed,
utter. distribute or circulate. or cause
to be uttered, printed or circulated,
any ticket or ballot having thereon
such mark or designating device with
any name printed thereon other than
the name or names of the candidate
or candidates nominated by the polit-
ical convention adopting such mark or
designating device. = = =" con
piled Laws of 1897, Sec. 1888.
From a reading Of this section it APP
pears that it is only upon the filing of
the certificate that a party acquires
priority in the use of the emblem
which 1t adopts. From and after the
time of the fling it is made unlawful
for any other political convention, per-
son or persons in such county to adopt
or use any such mark or designating
device for election purposes. The adop-
| llOH anu DIlOI Hllls " I'LL tI1D1tll dlt
essential to give any party the sole
right to it's use as an emblem, as
against any other convention or per-
Sol
At the time the Independent republi-
cans adopted their emblem, the repub-
licans had acquired no exclusive right
to the use of the American flag in the
,a,,,.,. - Co,o,.A fNr thD nlDaf;ap Af
1902, for the reason that at that time
no certificate had been filed. 1t was
therefore legal, and not within the pro-
hibitions of the statute, for the indie
pendent republicans to adopt the flag
within a square at a time such ac-
ton was taken by their convention.
Had the republicans, however. filed
their certificate first the action of their
convention in adopting the American
flag as the emblem of their party In
Socorro county for the election of 1902
would have been given vitality, and
their exclusive right to such emblem
would thereby have been established,
and the use of such emblem by any
other party or person would thereafter
be unlawful. But the two certificates
having been filed concurrently, ut
priority in the use of the emblem
adopted by either convention was ac-
CURED. Both were legal and regular
at the time of their adoption, and pri.
ority could only be given by priority in
the filing of the certificate. There be-
ing no priority in the filing of either
certificate, but the filing of both con
current, the emblem and ticket of each
party is legal and regular, and could
legally be cast and counted.
1t has been urged on behalf of the
contestant that the filing of the repub-
lican certificate, although concurrent
with the filing of the independent re-
publican certificate, related back, and
became operative from the time of the
adoption of the emblem by the repub-
lican convention, and that thereby the
republicans gained an exclusive right
to the American flag. This is not the
legal rule. The filing or recording of
an instrument in writing only relates
back to the date of its execution or de-
livery when the statute fixes the time
within which such filing must be made
after its execution or delivery. (Clark
VS.. White. ~ Peters, 17S; Hanson VS..
Cochran, 81 Atlantic Reporter. S00.)
Where there is no statute fixing the
time after delivery within which a
written instrument must be filed or re-
corded, priority is acquired from the
moment of filing or recording. Here
the statute makes priority date from
the time the certificate is filed, and
the common law rule has no applica-
ton. To hold that the filing Of the Ger
tifcate of adoption Of an emblem re-
lates back to the time Of its adoption,
would put it in the power of a few per.
sons to hold a convention in a remote
precinct of a county at an early day in
the canvas and TO refrain from filing
a certificate of adoption until the even-
ing before election, and thereby de
feat the use of such emblem by any
party whom they might have reason to
believe would adopt such emblem for
| their party ticket to be used in the
same canvass and within the same