The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-10-06

where only one or two or more conven-
tions is claimed to have been held upon
call of the regular party. committee and
the, identity of that one is therefore not.
in doubt. The second clause provides for
q case where all of conventions are claim
ed to have been held pursuant to the
call of such and ths, same committee by
creating, a tribunalV tor decide, for the
guidance of the secnetaeg of state, which
set of nominees is, Regular and therefore
entitled to the use 1ofiythe party name,
such. tribunal possessing by familiar rules
exclusive and final tjurisdiction. save as
hereafter stated. snii5ss
saa1ciause Cannot Apply =
4 - Theefirst clause af.sseetion 80. Stat
utes 1885, cannot applydto this cause be-
cause the dominant feature. thereof is
existence of Il multmaFious i'm to the
same party name, rdeserminable. as be-
fore indicated. by 5he certifying officer
from his own records, showing the neces-
sary source of regularity.
s. While the dominant feature of such
first clause is the existence of multi
farious 'claim TO the same party name, -
one of such claims only being based ON
the "call of the regularly constituted
party authotities = the dominant fea-
ture of the second clause is the. exist
of muItifarious "Tclaim to the
same party name,- based on "a like
claim TO the regularity of the party con-
vention. each of the claimants referring
necessarily to the "eall of the regularly
constituted party authorities" as in the
case in hand.
g. The present controversy comes
clearly within the second clause of said
section So, answering as it docs every
call thereof. Two conventions were
held; each of said conventions made
nomina tons; such nominations were
duly certified each of said conventions
claimed to be the regular convention of
The Republican party.
10. 1t was competent for the Iegisla-
ture, in authorizing an official ballot and
granting to the party nominees a right
to have their names placed thereon UNI
der the party designation, to subject that
right, in case of controversy between
two or more sets Of nominees. eac s
to decision of the party tribunal as in
said section SO. 81
Decisions unimpeachabIe
IL. The creation of a tribunal TO de-
termine such controversies, no provision
being made for judicial review of its de-
ciSions necessarily makes its jurisdiction
exclusive and its decisions unimpeachable,
except for jurisdietfonal defects.
T.. The tribunal answering TO the call
the Republican. state-scentral. committee,
elected at the state convention of 1902,
and duly certified TO. the secretary OF
state under section 81 of the statutes,
therefore the Jurisdiction of this court is
limited to deciding, whether such COM
mittee was or is withVHt jurisdiction, be-
cause of bias or interest of some of its
members or whether it's decision IS af-
fected by jurisdictional defects.
Is. Such tribunal. though required. to
act judicially, being an Sadministra tive
rather than a judicial body, bias or in
terest of its members, does not disquan-
fy them nor affect It's Jurisdiction
IA. The decision of the national = Re-
two sets of delegates from this state
claiming the right to represent the Re
publican party thereof in such convention
Significance as guide to the secretary
OF state or to the committee authorized
TO determine the factionaI dispute under
said section s., since the exclusive Ju-