New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-05-22
O.. n. Y. d. CASE ARGUED.
Justice Horard, of Troy, Reserve:
Decision-Thinks Remedy Wrong.
IRY TELEaRAPH 20 IL TRIBrNE.


Troy " Y May 2.-The application OF the
Greater Nevy-York Democracy for writ OF man
danus directing the Secretary OF State and the
State Board Of Canvassers to canvass and file sep
aratey the vote the State ticket OF the organiza
ton cast at the State election OF 1902 was argued
before Justice Howard, OF the Supreme Court. to-
day. Myer J. Stein and Wales T. Severance, Of
New-York. appeared for the petitioner. Deputy
Attorney General Wood and Judge L. l. SheddeIi.
OF Clinton County, represented the Secretary OF
State At the close of the argument Justice How
ard reserved decision. but remarked: Il am OF the
impression you have mistaken your remedy"
At the outset Deputy Attorney General Wood
objected to the appearance of Judge Sheldon at
torney for the Secretary Of State. He said the
Attorney General the legal counsel of all State
officers in matters affecting the State. and as the
matter before the court was one of public and not
OF private interest the Secretary OF State could not
be legally represented except by the Attorney Cen
eraL Judge Shedden. the other hand, insisted
that the proceeding had been brought against the
Secretary of State in administrative capacity
outside OF the duties imposed upon him by law
Judge Howard allowed his appearance to be noted
Judge Wood then proceeded to the main question
OF the case opposing the motion for mandamus
on the ground that 1t made papers, copies
Of which had not been served there being no copies
Of the tally sheets certificates OF the county
clerks showing the vote alleged to have been re-
ceived by the Greater New-York Democracy served
with the papers.
Mr. STEM for the relator. argued that his petition
sufficiently stated the without the serving o.
actual certified copies Of the tally sheets on the
State officers. Mr. Stein pointed out that the cleo
ton law defective IN making no provision for
case where a party Endorsed the candidates OF an
other party.
There is nothing on file in the Secretary of
States Office" said he Ito show that there ever
such organization the Greater New
York Democracy" The request to use the papers
objected TO then withdrawn, and Mr.. Stein pro,
ceeCed with his main argument lie conte!lueu
that the Greater NeN-YOTk Democracy had Dcen
cheated OF its rights political party by the
failure OF the Local returning boards to distinguish
the cast IN its column for State officers on the
BY having the State records show what its separate
vote had been.
Judge Wood attacked the method b. which the
relator sought TO secure his remedy. but admitted
that the law silent to any method by which,
the vote Of any particular party for candidate
could be distinguished from that OF any otneT
party for the candidate. He argued also
that the court could command the state offcers to
perform only those duties required definitely by
law. and. further, that any remedy the Greater
New-York Democracy might ever have had had ex-
pred four months after the election. similar
argument was made by Judge Sheldon in behalf OF
the Secretary OF State and he also filed a brief
formulating the argument at length
Mr. Severance, for the Greater New-York Democ-
-acy, argued that the court had abundant power
in the case. Unless the Secretary Of State has
Severance why should he oppose this information
being filed in his Officer? He urged the great public
Importance OF Independent political parties a
reason for judicial Interference in this matter.