New-York tribune., 1905-11-03
JEROME STANDS ALONE.
Court Decides His Name Cannot
4ppeu IN Republican Column.

The appeal from Justice Stover's ORDER denying
the right of the Republican convention to SUD
stttute on the official ballot the name OF VIII
liam Travers Jerome for that of Charles A Fam
mer WIS dismissed yesterday by the Appellate D-
vision of the Supreme Court The decision makes IL
imperative for Mr.. Hammers name TO remain IN
the Republican column on the official oaiiot anu
Mr.. Jerome's will therefore only appear GA
the ballot in the column under the square.
The opinion OF the court was rendered Per
c,ran," that IS sc was dictated by the court anu
had the unanimous approval Of the 1usuoes- AZ
The preliminary statement the court rehearses INC
circumstances under which the convention was
held first on October Is An account Is also given
of the last action of the convention fourteen a,s
after the original nomination ana WITHIN eSeVe
days OF the election. Attention is caueo 10 .no
provisions OF election law relative TO the iiihs
OF vacancies on a ticket, and it is stated tha'
Charles A FIa1nner. the first nominee Ior the Or
nee of District Attorney did not oeenie oe
nomination within the period required at ieas'
twenty days" It is added that ne mas lo' 'iio0
20 Tar as is shown by the record before US. de-
ci.,ea 4b. nomination in the manner or FORM
prescribed by tho statute
I~he question therefore. tho opinion states Is
nor eouareiy presented for decision as TO whether
the provision regarding the twenty days is manoa-
,orv or merely directory Continuing. the court.
tn part, says:
we are unanimously of opinion that the most
favorable view of the case for the peutoner Inst t
acfjon Of the Republican county convention in
nominating Mr. Jerome as an original holla,otl, -
and the proceedings of the convention appear 10 10
have been shaped with a view 10 laying pass SIS
for that contention. Viewed in that light IL is as
II the Convention had not called. had failed
10 meet and make nomination in time 70 perInle mn
ies & nrescrbed by the statute This presents the
question as whether the statutes prescribing the
time within which certificates OF party nolllal3Il
are required TO be flied are mandatory or only ol-
reotory.
Reference Is then made to the fact that a court
OF coordinate jurisdiction unanimously decided a
similar case under the former election law. nearly
ten years ago
has frequently amended the election law since
that decision rendered, and the court hoios
that IL is fair TO that if the construction
then placed upon the law was not IN accoroance
with the wishes of the people and the will OF the
legislature some change in the law would nave
been made The opinion proceeds:
In the circumstances disclosed by the record we
are asked to strain the language of the statute ana
ra ke It's phraseologY bend and yield 10 consIruc
marty nomination to defer calling its convention or
making a nomination at least until the very last
II teems TO us that such construction would
thwart the plain will OF the people as ne tS
election law, definitely limiting the perloo within
which party nominations may be mace. 10 a spe-
cifc number OF days before election. 80
: We think the suggested is Taught with
si ereaL an ctber In any emergency this court
would indulge in so-called Judicial Iegisaton aIl9
We are all agreed that such emergency is now
presented it follows, therefore, lhaI the oIoer
should be affirmed
Henry ". Taft, counsel for the applicants in the
Jerome case after hearing the decision of the Ap-
pellate Division, said:
do not think that the will be carried any
s,' ,,,e ,ns.ter further on accnunt Of the late
ness Of the time and the inconvenience that Touid
be caused TO the public by the delayed printing Of
he haIlots