The independent., 1904-11-03
Weekly Letter on the -
Now York Situation by
- Hon. Henry NJ. Mcdonald.

| bors-slgned and acknowledged the PEE
titfOn in my presence. Should not the
names OF these $50 petitioners have
been added to the ] ,022 names, making
total of LIZ unquestioned petition-
ers asking for my nomination? / ask
you as judge and as man, is there
any rule of law or equity which could
justify you in rejecting the names OF
these $50 petitioners?
But, | maintain that you can not
cite statute, court decision or rule
of evidence which would justify you
| in rejecting en- bloc the 430 signatures
obtained by Mr.. Bodger to my petit
| ton. You were undoubtedly entirely
correct in rejecting the obscene sig
nature, to which reference was made
| by counsel. But no further could you
go and continue to observe justice and
equity. In rejecting the names OF
i these 430 petitioners, as a whole, you
followed no higher plane of logic or
reason than you would in pronouncing
an entire flock Of sheep black, when
only one black sheep could, after the
most critical examination, be pointed
out to you. Or, perhaps, as more anal
agous, when you discovered after most
careful search that the shepherd of the
flock had tarred one sheep, would you
/ consider yourself justified in deter
mining slsat he had tarred the remains
ing 429! You seem "a entirely forget
that while Mr.. Bodger was most &C.
prehensible in having permitted an OBJ
scene name to befoul nominating
petition, you did not, by rejecting the
43O names, at all punish him, but that.
on the other hand, you inflicted most
cruel wrong On fieiie III ii tii the
private conversation to which you in
vited me, you absolyed entirely from
knowledge of Dodgers most censur-
able act.
1T would seem that. as a judge
you should have known that the de-
clsions In nominating petition cases in
this state hold that the statutes should
be literally interpreted, and the rules
OF evidence graciouSly applied respect
ing the rights of candidates who are
forced to seek nomination through PEI
1 tition. AS matter of fact, the effect
of all the material decisions made by
you in my case Except that on the
i
could have no standing in any COURT,
were vigorously given to the end that
the valid signatures on my nominate
i ing petition might be reduced below
| 1000, the number required to effect
my nomination.
Further, the fact that the appellate
division of the supreme court for this
department does not convene until Mo-
yember, thus depriving me of redress
until too late to have my name placed
on the official ballot, no matter how
unjust your decision, should have
caused you to deliberate most care-
fully on the case. and not to have
jumped ta aaan arbitrary conclusion. de-
priving me OF MY 7sssAtnto nonlirla-
ton, inspired apparently by the fSol~.
ing OF outrage which you had against
the notary for whose act | was in no
way responsible.
| am a member, though non-prac-
tlcing, OF the bar in this state. I have
always endeavored to maintain the
highest respect for the decisions of the
judiciary, especially those of the
judges OF the higher courts. But per-
NIT me to say, that it is unjust. non
rectlhable decisions, such as you have
Just rendered, that begets disrespect
for our judges and for the decisions
and mandates of our courts. This feel
ing is especially fostered, when, as in
the case OF your decision, citizens are
deprived of one of their highest rights.
viz: that OF the free exercise of snf-
frage.
L am not one who cherishes per-
sonal resentment, but l am saddened
when judge, especially one of Scotch
lineage. is apparently unwilling to
stand for the rights of an Independents
citizen seeking the privilege of re-
ceiving the votes of his fellow-cjtizens
as against the interests of a powerful
political organization of which the
: judge is member, and by which he
has been given the judicial office which
: he holds.
j., Very respectfully yours.
"(Signed)
|