The daily morning journal and courier., 1906-10-31
New York Court of Appeals Affirms Right to Nomi- nate by Multiple
 Petition.
DECISION BY WHOLE COURT
HANDED DOWN LATE LAST NIGHT AND READ BY
 JUDGE GRAY.

Court Also Decides That i'm the Case
 of the Judicial Nominations the Ger
 tificate Filed First Has Prior Claim
 and That the Independence League
 Has a Right to Designate Its Own
 Candidates--Law Construed IdberaIly
 to Give. Effect to the Will of the
 People.
 Albany, Oct, SO.-The court of appeals tonight decided that the making of in- dependent nominations by multiple petition was not contrary to the elec- ton statute, and affirmed the right of the Independence league to make such nominations. The court also decided that in the case of judicial nominations the certificate filed first had prior claim and that the Independence league had right to designate its own candidates. The decisions were handed down at 11.15 tonight, following a special ses- sion of the court which reconvened at 2:30 to-day for the purpose of hearing the appeals from appellate division or ders in the New York city nomination cases. As a result of the decisions these candidates will be placed in the Inde- pendence league column on the official ballot:
 Edward H. Hannah, labor and Inde- pendence league candidate in the Eight eenth assembly district, New York; Francis D. Shober, Tammany candidate in the Seventeenth congressional dis trict; Sherman S. Menand Tammany candidate in the Eighteenth senatorial district; Charles V. Farmer, Tammany candidate in the Eighteenth congress sional district; William Sohmer, Tam many candidate in the Twelfth sena- torial district; Henry M. Goldfogle Tammany candidate in the Ninth con- gressional district. Judge Otto Rosal- sky's name will also go into the Inde- pendence league column.
 Judge Gray read the decision, which was by the whole court It follows:
 ClA OL lllC clppSotlS UclOLS uo dEb lIOul orders of the appellate division revers- ing, on the law only, decisions of the special term. The sole question involv- ed In these appeals is whether, when certificates for independent nominations are required to be filed in the same off, flee, any one of such certificates shall be held invalid because it is made for Y1nrnin a tinr of than didate, the electors making it being qualified to make a certificate for the nomination of all the candidates men, toned therein. We find nothing in the statute which forbids nominating cer- tifcates of this character; nor does therwe seem to be any practical ground which would be fatal to their validity This is in accordance with repeated de- cisons of this court, and of the appel late division, that the election law should be construed liberally to give effect to the will of the people. These views lead to a reversal of the order of the appellate division in these cases, and to the affirmance of the order of the special term.
 "The foregoing relates to- Matter of application of Edward A. Hannah matter of the application of William s. Bennett; matter of the application of Martin Sake; matter of the appli- cation of Charles W. Lefier; matter of the application of Samuel Hoffman, and matter of the application of Charles S. Adler.
 Tn certain of the other cases the or der of the appellate division Is based upon the ground that the party ap- pealing to the special term from the determination of the board of elections had no sufficient standing for that pur- pose. not being a party to the proceed ing. In this view of the appellate di- vision we concur, it being in accord ance with our previous decisions in the matter of the social democratic party.
 "As to the question raised in one of the appeals (matter of the application of Samuel E. Terry), that the person nominated would be disqualified from election as a member of the assembly because a commissioner of deeds, we are of opinion that that question cannot be determined in proceedings with ref erence to the certificate of nomination but must be left to the assembly to de- termine in case of his election"
 The court goes on to say, after af' firming the decision of the appellate di' vision that John J. Brady could not bt placed under the Independence league emblem on the judiciary ticket:
 ''As to the contest between the sev' eral sets of Independence league nom nations, We are of opinion that tht certificate first filed under that title wa' entitled to preference, provided that under the provisions of section 56 of thu election law, it was filed by the sam' independent body which had made thu state nominations. Whether the cleo tors who joined in the first certificate or those who made the second certif cate were the same independent bod! presented a question of fact on whict the decisions of the courts below con clude us.