The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-10-05
UPHELD BY THREE
OF -FOUR JUDGES
High Tribunal Decides the Cues
ton Is Entirely Within
Jurisdiction.
ACTION Is PROPERLY
BROUGHT IN EQUITY
Marshall, Dodge and Winslow
Unite Chief Justice Cas-
soday Dissents.

-# = SOtAdy 04SSoAtS.
Madison, Wis, Oct. 5.-The supreme
court today decided that the La Toilette
Marshall, Dodge and WinsioW, We're eqesfe or.
the La Toilette faction, while Chief
Justice Cassoday dissented. The opin-
ion will be filed later by Justice Mar.
!, az 4 state state convention held May i,
l,O60 delegates were given seats. OF
these s57 were uncontested and 10S con-
tested; Of the uncontested, SIS 10 were
for La Toilette. The state central COM
mittee, being in sympathy with La Fol-
lette, seated but forty-three contested
sta!wart delegates, giving La Toilette Q
majority. s..
The stalwarts charged unfairness,
bolted, nominated separate ticket and
went into the supreme court to compel
the secretary. of state to. put the stall
wart ticket in the regular republican
column Of the official ballot
Supreme Court Decision.
+. After setting forth the facts alleged
in the complaint, and answer fled, the
decision continues: g.,
Flrst-Controversy shown to exist by
foregoing sufficiently econcerns preroga-
ttves of state and affects liberties of peo-
pie. to be within original jurisdiction Of
this court. IKE o..
second-such controversy is of so grave
a character, and of such public impor-
lance, as to warrant this court in exer-
cisins it's original jurisdiction to deter
mine right of matter, SO far as the door
is open for it to do so.
Third.-Since the question presented
merely involNes@the duty of the secretary
Of state in performance of an act ex-
preFsly n1oIned bylaw, it is judicial
one. 5s5ss;5-5s> 81 5isss ~ .s,g:,.-
Fourth-For tie present case, the time
not having arrived when the secretary Of
state ts required to make certification Of
nominations, by general rule, there is no
remedy at law by mandamus;. hence ac-
ton, II ma1ntainable at ALL is properly
brought in equity If the Legislature has
not furnished another and exclusive.
remedy. - '.,..,.z :.
What Legislature Intended.
Fifth-The Legislature intended to pro-
vide for settlement, out of court, of all
questions between factions of a party con-
corning the right to the party name upon
official ballot. by section 49, Wisconsin
statutes, in these words:
(a)-In case of division in any politi-
cal party, and a claim by two or more
factions thereof to the same party name,
the officer. with whom the certificates Of
nomination are required to be filed shall,
| in certifying such nomination or preparing
ballots give, preference of name TO tho
convention or caucus thereof, held pur-
suant to the call of the regularly con-
stituted party authorities, and If the COM
mittee representing the other faction pre-
sent no other party name, such officer
may designate the same in such manner
| as will best distinguish the nominations
thereof. -s
(b)-when two or more conventions or
caucuses shall be held and the nominal
lions thereof certified, each claiming to
be the regular convention or caucus Of
the same political party, preference in
| designation shall be given to thenomina.
lions Of the one certified by the COM
nittee which had been officially certified
to be authorized to represent the party.
What Law Provides.
Sixth-The first clause provides for q
case where only one Of two or more con-
ventions Is claimed to have been held
upon call Of regular party committee
and the identity of that one is therefore,
not in doubt. The second clause pro-
vides for case where all Of the conven-
lions are claimed to have been held pur-
suant to the call Of such and the same
| committee, by creating a tribunal to de-
! eide, for guidance for the secretary of
state which set Of nominees is regular
and therefore entitled to the use Of the
party name, such tribunal possessing, by
| familiar rules, exclusive and final juris-
diction, save as hereafter stated.
| Seventh-The first clause Of section So,
statutes 1898, cannot apply to this case,
| because the dominant feature thereof is
existence of a multifarious "claim to the
same party name," determinable as be-
fore indicated by the certifying officer
/ from his own records, showing the neces-
sary source Of regularity.
Claim to Party Name.
Eighth-whle the dominant feature Of
| such first clause is the existence Of a
/ multifarious claim to the same party
name" one of such claims only being
based on the "call of the regularly con-
| stituted party authorities the dominant
] feature of the second clause is the ex-
istence of a multifarious claim to the
same party name,'' based on like claim
to the regularity of the party conven-
ton, each of the claimants referring
necessarily to the "can of the regularly
1 constituted party authorities as in the
case in hand.
Ninth-The instant controversy comes
clearly within the second clause Of said
section IS, answering as 1t does every
call thereof.
/ (a)-Two conventions were held.
b)-Each Of said conventions made
/ nominations.
/ .(c)-such nominations were duly GER
tilted.
i (d)-Each of said conventions claimed
1 to be the regular convention Of the res
publican party.
AS to Party Tribunal.
1 Tenth-It was competent for the legis-
lature in authorizing an official ballot
i and granting to the party nominees a
Il right to have their names placed thereon