The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-10-27

were James j. Egan for the Twenty-third
Dennis Murphy for the Twenty-firt, Pierce
L. Murphy for the Nineteenth and j. Sidney
Bernstein for the Thirty-irst. These
necessarily fall with Shober. but. like him
three Of them, Morrand, p. L.. Murphy and
Bernstein. have the TammanY nomination
TO fall back on. The Others have only the
independence League nomination and are
wiped out completely by the decision.
The decision reads in part:
The statute separates the nomination of
candidates for the whole state. OF candi-
dates for municipal Ofice TO be voted for
by all the electors of the municipality, OF
candidates for a county Office, OF candidates
for public Office other than municipal Offices
10 he voted for IN "A district less than the
whole state. greater than n town, ward or
city, Of an assembly or School Commissioner
district, of a town or ward of city or village.
We think that " was here inter ded that the
certificate nOiniua ling a candidate for cleo
ton in any part Cular district should he
confined to nOmiI R'ing candidates TO be
voted for in that particular district, whether
that district comprises the whole state or
lesser territory, and that IL was not con-
TEN plated that candidates to he voted for
in more than one dist let should be included
in one certificate Of nomination. The unit
recognized all through the act il a particular
district. The number of electors required
10 Oninat fol different districts and muni-
cipalities il different.
The nomination for Assembly in one Assem-
bly, district is separately fled as "A certificate
for nomination EIr that particular district.
aud whether the names are on one or more
sheets OF paper. the certificate is "A separate
certificate. having Tor its purpose the nom
ination Of n candid ate for "a particular Office
in a particular dist net. The certificate for
nomination of a state senator has relation TO
the Senatorial district, and that certificate.
whether consisting of one or more sheets Of
paper, iSa single certificate for the nomination
of a state senator in Nat particular district.
The nomination of a nember Of Congress in a
particular Congressional district. whether
composed of one or more sheets of paper, IL a
certifcate of nomination for a memberof Com
Vress for a particular district. In each case
there is one certificate for the nomination of a
particular officer in a particular district.
IL there are two or more officers to be elected
in that particular district. as in a municipal
election. where rhere is a Mayor and other
municipal officers to be elected at the same
election. the certificate IS a nomination for the
particular offices TO be filed by the munich
pality which included the whole district but a
certificate Of nomination for municipal officers
certainly could not he combined with certiti-
Gates for nominations Tor members of Con-
Rresa. state Senators. members OF Assembly.
Aldermen in the several districts and county
officers II they should b. voted for at the
same election.
The absolute inlpOssibility of determining
the aggregation of.the names upon
each certificate is sufficient TO nominate in
each particular district as well as to nomi-
nate the officers for the whole municipality
is a fact that We can consider in determining
whether it was the intent OF the Legislature
that independent nominations should be
made. These considerations. which
might be considerably extended, and others.
which but for the lack of time We might
have satisfied us that IL was the
intention that the certificate OF nominations
of independent bodies for each district should
be separate and distinct.
IL is impossible to treat a certificate as
TO nominate for one ONCE therein
and to treat the attempt to nominate
for the other ofices as surplusage. because
there is no test by which IL can be determined
which office it can be considered a valid
certificate of nomination. Our conclusion
is that such a certificate IL invalid for any
purpose. and for that reason the order APP
pealed from and the determination of the
Board of Elections is reversed.
Probably the sorest man over the decision
was Melvin q. Palliser, counsel for the
Independence League, He declared that he
felt convinced that the Court OF Appeals
would promptly reverse the Appellate
DINuSlOn. nc Nulh dNCs
we are preparing the necessary appeal
papers already and hope to lay our case
bel ore the Court of Appeals by Tuesday at
the latest. We have te~legraphed to Justice
Cullen asking that a special session be held
because Of the urgency Of the situation.
The courts decision, to say the least, il
strange, and only adds point to our con-
tention that the whole election law is bad
from start to finish. The law was drafted
10 make things easy for the recognized
parties and to discourage, II IT would not
wholly prevent, any independent nominal
How do YOU think this decision and the
blank appearance Of the independent
League ticket will affect the vote for Mr..
Hearst Mr.. Palliser was asked.
~Ifeel certain that il means a gain OF any
where from Is, 900 to 50 900 wavering votes"
replied Mr.. Palliser. There il no question
that the voter who is not blindly partisan
will resent the attempt to deprive hun Of
his power to make independent nominations
or 20 limit that power in any way, as TINS
decision does. But the decision also means
that the Republican local ticket will gain
amount OF votes.
LAWYER Abraham s. Gilbert was jubilant
over the decision, as he had raised the very
Doint which the court sustained. The
noint raised as to the Independence League
being a corporation, and the question sub
mitted to the court as 20 whether a corpora
ton can make nominations, was dismissed
by the court as unworthy Oh COMMENT
The case Of James j. Erawley, the Tam
many Senator and leader of the Twentieth,
was dignifed by the court with a separate
opinion In his case IL appeared that there
were three petitions filed nominating him
for the Senate-on October 8, 10 and II.
sets Of objections we're filed to the
petitions, but The last objections were filed
nine hours before the last petition and
therefore there were no objections before
the court TO the third petition. Under
these circumstances the court holds that It
has not acquired jurisdiction OF the Frawley
case, but IL comments a. follows;
III we had such jurisdiction. founded
upOn a proper objection, il may be the
nomination would be found to be invalid
As nearly as could he a~scertained last
night in the confusion resulting from the
courts decision, the following ara the
candidates whose Independence League
nominations are knocked out by the decision.
Tho list shows the Office, the district and the
name Of the candidate, and also whether
Inc has the nomination Of any other party,
which will not be affected by the decision:
coNOREss.
Dist.