The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-10-05
the complaint and in the answer filed,
the decision continues:

the complaint and in the answer filed
the decision continues:
First-The controversy shown to
exist by the foregoing sufficiently con-
Germs the prerogatives of the state ano
affects the liberties of the people to be
within the original jurisdiction of this
court.
Second-Such controversy. is of SC
grave a character and of such pubilc
Importance, as to warrant this court in
exercising it's original jurisdiction to
determine the right of matter, so faf
as the door is open for it to do so.
Third-Since the question presented
merely involves the duty of the secre-
tary of state in the performance of an
act expressly enjoined by law 1t is a
judicial one.
Fourth-For the present case, the
time not having arrived when the sec
retary of state is required to make
certification of nominations by the gen
eral rule there is no remedy at law py
mandamus; hence action, If maintain
able at all is properly brought in equi-
ty. if the legislature has not furnished
another and exclusive remedy.
Fifth-The legislature intended 10
provide for settlement out OF court OF
all question between factions of par
ty concerning right to place the party
named upon the official ballot, by sec
tion 35 Wisconsin statutes IN THESE
words:
"(a1 In case of a division in any po-
litfcal party and a claim by two or
more factions thereof to the same par
ty name the officer with whom tne
certificates of nomination IRE required
to be filed shall in certifying such NOM
ination or preparing ballots, give pref
erence of name to the convention OF
caucus thereof held pursuant to the
call of the regularly constituted party
authorities, and if the committee rep
resenting the other factions present no
other party name, such officer may deS-
ignate the name in such manner as
will best distinguish the nominations
thereof"
(b)-'sWhen two or more conven-
tions or caucuses shall be held ana
the nominations thereof certlhed, each
claiming to be the regular convention
or caucus of the same political party,
preference in designation shall De CIV
en- to the nominations of the one GER
tilted by the committee which had
been oficially certified to be author
lied to represent the party
Sixth-The first clause provides for
a case where only one of two or more
conventions is claimed to have been
held upon the call of the regular party
committee and the identity of that
one is, therefore, not in doubt Ihe
second clause provides for a case
where all of the conventions are
claimed to have been held pursuant to
the call of such and the same committee
by creating a tribunal to decide for
guidance for the secretary of state
which set of nominees is regular and
therefore entitled to use of the party
name. such a tribunal possessing by
familiar rules exclusive and final juris-
dition save as hereafter stated.
Seventh-The first clause of section
35 statutes of 1898, can not apply to
this case, because the dominant fea-
ture thereof is the existence of a null
tifarious t'claim to the same party
name" determinable as before indi-
Gated by the certifying officer from
his own records, showing the neces-
sarv source of regularity.
Eighth-While the dominant fea-
ture of such first clause is the exist
ence of a multifarious "claim to the
same party name" one of such claims
only being based on the 'calI of the
regularly constituted party authori-
ties,'' the dominant feature of the
second clause is the existence of a
multifarious claim to the same party