The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-10-06
ARGUE DAY PETITION
IN SUPREME COURT
Attorneys Seek Construction of
Statute Touching Fusion
on judicial Ticket

!
Attorneys argued before the court
nearly all Wednesday on the petition
Of Frank A. Day, chairman of the
Democratic state central committee,
! by which it is sought to secure the
placing of the name of Calvin L..
Brown, of Morris, on the official state
ballot with the designation Demo
craft, after his name as well as the
word Republican
Chief Justice c. M Start and the
three judges of the district court des-
ignated by the governor to sit in the
case spent two hours in consultation,
! considering the questions of law in.
Avolved in the issue presented, but no
decisions was announced at the conclu-
sion of the conference.
The secretary of state had officially
notified the court that a decision is
desired not later than Oct. 8, and it is
expected that a formal decision will
be filed within a day or two.
There is no intimation of the forth
coming decision, but it is understood
that the judges sitting in the case will
communicate their views to Chief JUS
tlce Start and that the result of the
majority view will be announced by
Fthe chief justice in time to guide the
secretary of state in preparing the
official ballot. Since there were four
! judges hearing the arguments, three
affirmative opinions are necessary to
decide the questions raised by the pc
tition presented to the court by the
Democratic state central committee.
Brings Out New Point
The arguments brought out an en-
tirely new point not raised in the orig
lnal petition, and this is that the act
which the Democratic state central
committee declares unconstitutional
has been repealed by subsequent leg
islation.
The provision of the election law un-
der which the secretary of state re-
fused to place the name of Judge
Brown on the ballot with the designa-
ton Democrat" after his name as well
as the word Republican is squarely
attacked by the Democrats as uncon-
stitutional
During the arguments yesterday
Chief Justice Start, by question adj
dressed to j. W. Arctander, of counsel
for the petitioner, opened an entirely
new line of discussion, and this was to
question the fact whether Or not the
law complained of has not been re-
pealed.
Chapter TIA, General Laws of 1908,
amendatory of chapter 4, laws Of 1893;
as amended by chapter 36 of the laws
of 1895, provides that when a candi-
date. shall have been nominated for the
same office by more than one political
party, the names of the party by whom
he was first nominated shall be given
the first place following his name. It
Is contended that this act, by impHca-
ton, repeats chapter 312, General Laws
of 1903, which was the original act de-
signed to protect the names of political
a-fi O0 G1oTa mo q a-xxyC nf
1903, was approved April IA of that
year., four days later than the law
which is now brought into question as
repeating the whole subject, but it is
contended that the law of 1901. having
been repealed by implication, could not
be revived by the enactment Of the sec
ton Of the primary election law which
was amendatory thereof. This view is
supported by supreme court decisions.
in the past, which have uniformly held
that law which has been repealed
cannot be revived by another act
amending the law itself.
Argue Unconstitutionality
John w. Arctander and Henry c.
Belden, Minneapolis attorneys, appear
ed in support of the petition. Both at
tackled the anti-fusion legislation on
the Minnesota statute books as uncon-
stitutional, and Judge Belden severely
condemned any legislative restriction
which would prevent the judiciary
from being placed on a non-partisan
basis. He cited judicial partisan NOM
nations in the recent primaries in
Hennepin county as evidence that not
always the best men are nominated by
the great political parties for the
judgeships.
H. W. Childs, former attorney gen.
eral of Minnesota, appeared for the
tod ooit1cf the ming
of the Day petition. Chief Justice
Start had caused copy of the petition,
when it was originally filed with the
supreme court, to be served on the
Republican state central committee,
and it was understood that Gen. Childs
in effect represented the Republican
state organization before the supreme
court
He argued that political organiza-
lions are necessary to the existence OF
the republic itself, and the parties had
the right to make reasonable restr1c-
lions as to where and how names were
to appear on the official ballot. The
great parties are opposed to each other
in principle, he said, and could not well
nominate the same candidates. An act
which would prevent this and preserve
party lines is not unconstitutional, and
its provisions are not a violation OF
the bill of rights.
No Acknowledgement of the electors
is possible, for there are blank spaces
on the ballot with the opportunity for
the elector to write in the name of his
choice for Office if it does not appear on
the ballot, while the elector has the |
opportunity to exercise his choice IN
voting for either Democrat or Re-
publican. He secuted the suggestion |
that subsequent legislation had de-
stroyed the effect of the act complain |
ed of and declared that the title to the
act was sufficiently comprehensive in |
character.