The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-10-31
MULTIPLE PETITIONS UPHELD.
ONLY SIX or THEM ROCK AND
Quincy OFF HEARST TICkET.
All the other Appeals Thrown out -ResiAs
sky sticks brady Out Of undergraduate
League Column PRACTICALLY An the
Petitions Upheld Are FER Tammany Men

league Column -PracticsnY All the
Petitions Upheld Are fer anlnany Men
ALBANY, Oct. o.-The Court of Appeals
at II:1S O'Clock tonight handed down .
decision upholding the multiple oertln-
cate OF nomination of the Independence
League in New York county which the
Appellate Division last week threw out.
The court upon this point says:
six Of the appeals before us are from
orders OF the Appellate Division reversing
on the law. only. decisions Of h specih
term. The sole question involved 10 thess
appeals is whether. when certificates for
independent nominations are required 70 b
filed in the same ofice, any one OF such
certificates shs1l be held invalid because
IL is made for the nomination Of more than
one cal didate, the electors making N
being qualified to make a certificate for the
nomination OF all the candidates mentioned
therein We find nothing in the statute WI
forbids nominating certificates OF his
character, nor does there seem to be any
practical ground which would be fatal 70
their validity.
This is in accordance with repeated de-
cisions OF this court ard e. the Appellate
Division that the election law should beccp-
strued literally to give effect TO h VIII OF
the people. These views lead to a reversal
Of the order OF the Appellate Division | a
these cases and to the afirnhance OF the
order OF the special term"
The above ruling puts these candidates.
in the Independence League column, fror8
which they were ruled out by the Appellate
Division because they were ON multiple
certificates; Edward l, Hannah, Labor
and Independence League, Eighteenth As
sembly district; Francis f. Shober Tam.l5
Seventeenth Congressional district; sher-
man S. Momand, CTamJ Eighteenth Senate
district; Charles v. FOrnes Tsm], Eleventh
Congressional district; William Sohmer
CTam.J, Twelfth Senate district. and Henry
NJ. Goldfogle CTamJ, Ninth Congressional
district.
As TO all the other candidates thrown u
by the Appellate Division the court held that
it had no jurisdiction to review the decisions
because other objections than the nnultipis
one had been raised to the petitions before
the Poard Of Elections. Those other objecs
tions the Appellate Division did not consider
at all but had merely thrown them oOtunder
the multiple certificate ruling.
Ordinarily under such circumstances
the Court Of Appeals would have Femitted
these cases to the Appellate Division and
directed it to pass upon the other questions
upon the merits. but Chief Judge Cullen
declined to do this because the effect would
have beer to throw everything into inextri-
cable confusion. The Court therefore dis
missed all OF the other appeals except N
the judiciary cases. where the decision Of
the Appellate Division was In all respects
affirmed.
This means that the Independence League
judicial ticket will contain tbs names OF
nine candidates for Supreme Court Justices
identical with the Tammany candidates,
except JohnJ J. Brady, and Judge R~Osalsky's
name likewise will 60 in the Independence
League column.
In addition the names Of all the Demo-
cratic judicial candidates will appear a
second time in a separate independent
column and under a new name 10 be Sc
lected by the Board Of Elections and the
name Of Judge Brady also will appear
alone in still another column.
Judge Brady's name will thus appear in
thsee columns on the ballot, but not In the
Independence League column. As a result
Of four Of the appeals dismissed by the
Court OF Appeals tonight these anne will
also 60 in the column Of the Independence
League: Francis b. Harrison CTRm.l, Blk
teenth Congress district; James j. Frawley.
Tam }, Twentieth senate district; Leopold
Prince CTamD. Twenty-sixth Assembly
district. James v. Gsnly cramD, Twenty
fourth Assembly district.
These names will ret I've in the INDIE
pendence League column because the court
dismissed the aTIesls: Thomas Chester,
Independence Leagre candidate, Eleventh
Assembly district; Godfrey T.. Eshner,
Independence League candidate. Fifteenth
Assembly district; Sam, Fl r. Terry, In
dependence Lcague candidate, Thirty
fourth Asso nbly district CHARLES A. HUssey,
independence League candidate, Ninth Az
sembly district; william A. Rerns, In
dependence League candidate, Thirty"
second Assembly district: Samuel rreer-
berg. Indepen5encc League candidate,
T~wenty-sixth Assembly district; FREQ
erick D. Riley, Independence LeaFs
candidate, Twenty-fOIrth Assembly district;
Leslie J. Tompkins, Tammany candidate;
Twenty. fifth Assembly district; James A.
Lyon, Independence League candidate.
Twentieth Senate district; Henry v. Davies.
Independence Leagle candidate. Sixteenth
Congress district; Nanklyn Qninby. Inds-
pendenoe League candidate, Eighth Con-
gress district; Thomas F. Long, Indepen-
denoe League candidate, Thirteenth Senate
district; John r. Eagleton. Tammany candi-
dase, Fifth Assembly district Christopher d.
Sullivan, Tammany candidate, Thirteenth
Senate district; Thomas Rock, Republican
candidate, Fourteenth Senate district:
Thomas r. Grady. Tammany candidate,
Fourteenth Senate district.
In connection with this the court says:
In certain Of the other cases, as noted
above, the order OF the Appellate Division
10 based on the ground that the party APP
pealing TO Che Special Term from the deter
minatiOn Of the Board Of Elections had not
sufficient standing for that purpose, not
being a party to the proceeding. In this
view OF the Appellate Division ws concur.
it being in accordance with our previous
decision in the matter Of the Social Demo-
cratic party Qs2 N. Y, 442).
AS 70 tie question raised in a of the
appeals matter Of the application Of Samuel
L. Terry, that the person nominated would
he disqualified from election as Q Member
Of Assembly because q Commissioner Of
naoda WA ara ~ oniniOn thai thai nnaa~Aknn