Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1905-08-17


motion for a preliminary Injunction, the
court denied the motion and stated verbally
the reasons therefor. These reasons will now
be more formally, but very briefly stated in
writing. In no aspect of the case were the
plaintiffs entitled 10 the action of the court
then asked for. The proc cess of theinjunction
was sought to protect the plaintiff in rights
asserted by them as having been acquired as
candidates for office. and as citizens and
taxpayers by virture of proceedings had UNI
der the provisions of law in Chapter COS CT
the Act of 1904, legalizing primary meetings
in Anne Arundel County. without setting
out in fun the allegations in the pleadings
the plaintiffs set out in their bill, in detail,
certain proceedings whichare alleged to have
been had in compliance with the act
of 1904, Chapter 603, just referred to, and I'M
der the authority of the defendants, who
compose the Democratic State Central Com
mittee, recognized and given effect TO by the
defendants who compose the Board of Sup
ervisors OF Elections of Anne Arundel County
which eliminated in the holding of party
convention and the placing of the plaintiffs
in nomination as the candidates of the party
TO be voted for at the ensuing election i'm
November of the present year. BY virhlre
OF these alleged proceedings of the plaintiffs
claim the right to be recognized and held TO
be the regldarly nominated candidates of
their party for the Offices for which they have
been respectively named by the said con-
vention. They further allege that the de-
PENDANTS composing the Democratic State
Central Committee have now authorized and
set on foot, with the sanction and acquies-
cence OF the defendants, the Supervisors of
Election certain other proceedings with
a view to the holding OF another convention
To nominate candidates for. among others,
the officers for which the plaintiffs have
been nominated as alleged and to put
forward the candidates TO be nominated
by the convention SO to be held as the reg
ularly nominated candidates of the party
whose candidates the plaintiffs claim to be-
The plaintiffs then charge that these in
tended proceedings upon the part of the
defendants are unauthorized, and ineffective
60 give title TO any persons, other than
themselves. to become the candidates of
their party for the offices for which they
have been nominated and that they are,
or will be. injured in their alleged candidacy
by the proceedings being, or to be, had to
nominate and put forward other candidates
as the candidates of their party for the offices
of which they claim to be the regular and
authorized nominees. The relief prayed by
their bill is for an injunction to restrain this
alleged threatened injury, and the motion
was for preliminary injunction to restrain
proceedings upon the part Of defendants
pending proceedings to bring the cause to a
hearing on the merits and for final action.
To determine its action ON the motion the
court looked only to the case made by the
plaintiffs bill i and did not find it necessary
TO put its own construction on the Act of
1904, Chap. GO9 nor TO decide as to the valid
ity of the claim made by the plaintids that
they were the authorized and lawful nomi-
nees of their party, etc, to the exclusion of
the title of any other persons who might set
up a claim adversely to that OF the plaintiffs
in consequence of the proceedings which the
pIalntins sought to restain: nor what. would
be the legal status, as nominees of their
party. of any persons who might be put for
ward as such nominees by the constituted
authorities of the party as result CT the last
mentioned proceedings As TO these ques-
tions, the court has distinctly stated that il
intimated no opinion irrespective of whether
the facts alleged in the plaintiffs Oill are true
as therein set out or not; and as 10 such
questions the parties here are where they
were before coming into court. To deter
mine the action of the court in respect 10
the motion under consideration the plain
tins are simply left to stand or fall by the case
made by their bill. If the position that they as
sert themselves entitled TO as nominees, &C.,
isnot tenabIe then OF course they are not en-
titled 60 the relicf they are seeking. ON the
other hand If they are correct in their as
sertion OF their rights by virture OF the pro
ceedings. which they aliege In their bin. by
reason OF the provisions of the act of 1891.
Chap. 6l3 and that any attempt on the part
of the constituted authorities of their party
10 put forward other nominees for the Offices
for which they have been nominated, as al
legged. would be nugatCry, there surely can
be. in the vague allegation, that they win be
injured i'm their candidacy. no such showing
of ground for immediate preventive relief as
would Justify the court in ordering prelimi-
nary Injunction. Nor have the plaintiffs
any standing in court for such relief as tax
PAYERS. The defendants, none OF them In any
capacity. have any control over. manage
ment Of or power for expending moneys CT
funds in which the plaintiffs. in the capacity
OF taxpayers have any interest. SO much
has been said that the parties TO the cause
may understand that the sole question here
PASSED upon by the court is the right OF tha
plaintiffs to a preliminary injunction and
that no opinion is expressed. or intended t.
be intimated, upon any other question. upon
any state of facts that has been suggested
presented or argued in the case. as was dis
tinctly stated at the conclusion of the argu-
ment. when the case was heard on the mo
ton for Il preliminary injunction Aside
from the reasons which have been stated fol
denying the motion in question. am of ths
opinion that.a court of equity is utterly with
out jurisdiction to grant the relief prayet