Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-10-05
WINS THE DECISION
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Awards Case to La Toilette. :
THREE JUDGES ASSENT
DISSENTING OPINION BY CHIEF
JUSTICE CASsoDAY.
Full Text of Conclusion and Specific
Claims Set Forth in Support
of Judgment.

MADISON, Wis, October 5.-The supreme
|, court today decided the La Toilette ticket
regular. Three judges, Marshall. Dodge
and Winslow. are for the La Toilette fac
ton. Chief Justice Sassoday dssents
After setting forth the facts alleged in
the complaint and in the answer filed. the
decision continues:
1. The controversy shown to exist by the
foregoing sufficiently concerns the preroga-
tves of the state and affects the liber-
ties of the people to be within the or
iginal jurisdiction of this court.
3 Such controversy is of so grave
character and of such public Importance
to warrant this court in exercising its
original jurisdiction to determine the right
of the matter, so far as the door is open
for it to do so. .z.--
3. Since the question presented merely in
wolves the duty of the secretary of state in
the performance of act expressly en-
Joined by law. it is a judicial one.
f. For the present case, the time not hav-
ing arrived when the secretary of state is
required to make certification of nominal
tions by the general rule there is no rem
edy at law by mandaMus: hence. action. IL
maintainable at all, is properly brought in
equity, if the legislature has not furnished
another and exclusive remedy.
Legislatures Intention.
3. The legislature intended to provide for
settlement out of court of all questions be-
tween factions of a party concerning the
right to place the party name upon the
official ballot, by section 35, Wisconsin stat
utes in these words
(al-"In case of division in any political
party and a claim by two or more factions
thereof to the same party name, the officer
with whom the certificates of nomination
a rp n hp cd SholI IN, fxn
such nomination, or in preparing ballots,
give preference of name to the convention
or caucus thereof, held pursuant to the
call of the regularly constituted party au-
thorities, and If the committee representing
the other faction present no other party
name, such officer may designate the same
in such manner as will best distinguish the
nomina ton thereof.
tb)-"When two or more conventions or
caucuses shall be held and the nominations
thereof certified, each claiming to be the
regular convention or caucus of the same
political party. preference in designation
shall be given to the nominal tions OF the one
certified by the COMMITTEES which had been
officially certified to be authorized to rep
resent the party"
Identity of Conventions.
9. The first clause provides for a case
where only one of two more conventions
is claimed to have been held upon the call
of the regular party committee and the
doubt The second clause provides for
case where all of the conventions are claim
ed to have been held pursuant to the cali
Of the same committee, by creating a
tribunal to decide for the guidance of the
Secretary of State which set of nominees
Is regular and therefore entitled to use Of
the party name, such tribunal possessing,
by familiar rules, exclusive and final juris-
diction. save as hereafter stated
Z. The first clause of section 80. statutes
of 1898, cannot apply to this case, because
the dominant feature thereof is the exist
ence of multifariouS claim to the same
party name" determinable, as before indi-
Gated, by the certifying officer from his own
records, showing the necessary source Of
regularity.
s. While the dominant feature of such
first clause is the existence of q multi
farious 'claim to the same party nam.,'
one of such claims only being based on the
call of the regularly constituted party au-
thorities.'' the dominant feature of the sec
ond clause is the existence of multi
farious claim to the same party name,
based on like claim of the regularity OF
the party convention each of the claim
ants referring necessarily to the cad of
the regularly constituted party authorities,
as in the case in hand.
Q. The present controversy comes clearly
within the second clause of said section 30.
answering, as it does, every call thereof:
(a) Two conventions were held.
Co Each of said conventions made NOM
nations.
(c) Such nominations were duly certified.
Cd Each of said conventions claimed to
be the regular convention of the republican
party.
Legislature Was Competent.
TO- 1t was competent for the legislature,
in authorizing an official ballot, and in
granting to the party nominees a right to
have their names placed thereon, under
the party designation, to subject that right,
in case of controversy between two or more
each claiming
and such designation, to the decision of the
party tribunal in said section 80.
IL. The creation of tribunal to deter
mine such controversies, no provision being
made for judicial review of it's decisions.
necessarily makes it's jurisdiction exclusive
and it's decisions unfmpeachable, except for
jursdictional defects.
r. The tribunal answering to the call Of
said section 35, is found to exist in the re-
publican state central committee, elected
at the state convention of 1902 and duly
certified to the secretary of state, under
section 81 of the statutes. Therefore, juris-
diction of this court is limited to deciding
whether such committee was or is without
jurisdiction, because of bias or interest OF
some of it's members or whether it's deci-
sion is affected by jurisdictional defects
13 Such tribunal, though required to act
than judicial body, bias or interest of its
members does not disqualify them nor af-
feet its Jurisdiction.
IA. The decision of the national republf-
can convention, to which of the two sets
of delegates from this state, claiming the
right to represent the republican party
thereof in such convention, was entitled to
recognition, is not of any significance as a
guide to the secretary of state to the
committee authorized to determine the fac
tional dispute under said Section 80, since
exclusive jurisdiction thereof, regards the
official ballot law, was conferred by the
legislature upon the latter, as a special
tribunal, before indicated.
Rights Vested in Nominees.
Is. As soon as the nominations were
made by the conventions and duly certified.
rights of nominees to places upon official
ballot under the designation, republican
ticket" became. vested in them as repre-
sentatives of their respective organizations,
subject to the decision of the special trf-
bunal aforesaid, as to which OF the conven-
tions was regular and such right could.
therefore, not be in any way affected BY tha
determination of any other tribunal