The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-10-08

The supreme court has sustained the
contention of the Democratic state
committee that the secretary of state
had no right to refuse to place on the
official ballot the name of Judge Calvin
l.. Brown, of Morris, with the words
Republican, Democrat" after his
name.
Chief Justice Start yesterday made
formal order in which Peter E. Hanson,
secretary of state, Is directed to place
the name of Judge Brown on the bal
lots for the general election so as to
indicate the names of the two political
parties which have severally nominated
him for the judgeship.
Secretary of State Hanson said yes
terday that he would cheerfully comply
with the request; that his refusal had
been on the advice of the attorney gem
eral, and that the courts Interpretation
of the law was sufficient for him.
Formal Opinion on Monday
The order will be followed Monday
by the formal opinion of the court set
ting forth the reasons which influenced
the court in reaching the decision. 1t
will write the opinion, and that there
will be no dissenting opinion. 1t is not
known whether the court makes the
order on the ground that the section Of
the election law prohibiting dual party
nominations to appear on the ballot is
unconstitutional, or on the theory that
the prohibitory section has been re-
pealed by subsequent legislation. The
opinion Is awaited with considerable
interest by attorneys, who have, indie
pendent of party, taken deep interest
in the determination Of the question
raised by the petition filed week ago
by Frank A. Day, chairman of the
Democratic state central committee.
The news of the formal order COM
polling the secretary of state to place
the name of Judge Brown on the off,
cial ballots with the dual designation
of the parties after his name was re-
ceived quietly at the Democratic state
headquarters yesterday.
Decision Was Expected
at is what we had reason to expect"
said Chairman Day. "Our committee
was advised by some of the best law
yers in both st. Paul and Minneapolis
that we were clearly within our rights
in asking for the writ Of mandamus,
directed to the secretary of state to
compel him to put the name of Judge
Brown on the ticket with the words
indicating that he is the nominee Of
the Democrats as well as the Repub-
lican party, following his name. JUS
tice to Judge Brown demanded that the
action be brought, for when a man is a
candidate he naturally likes to receive
the full vote of the parties nominating
him. 1t will mean good many thou
sand votes to Judge Brown, and While
he was in no danger of defeat he is en-
titled to have the voters know by the
appearance of the official ballot that he
is the nominee of both parties.
Vindicates a Principle
"Our committee has, in this decision.
indicated principle and that is the
principle of a non-partisan judiciary.
Our ticket is admirable In every way
but in having the seal of the highest
state courts approval on the principle
of nom partisan judiciary we manu-
rally expect that the result IN Noyem-
Der will Justify our claim that not only
has a principle been vindicated, but
that the nom partisan judiciary idea
will be Endorsed by thousands of indie
pendent voters"
Republican leaders refuse to DISCUSS
the effect of the decision
The decision will have the effect Of
causing the Minnesota statute revision
commission to revise its election law
compilation. The commission, which
had completed the revision Of the cleo
ton statutes and properly classified
them, will necessarily be guided by the
supreme court in eliminating the anti
fusion election legislation now on thG
Minnesota statute books. No changes
will be made by the commission untiA |
the formal opinion of the supreme
court is fled in the Brown case.