New-York tribune., 1906-10-31

when court convened. Among them were ex-Gov-
ernor Black. who appeared for Judge Rosalsky
of New York, and ex-Judge Charles f. Brown. OF
the Court OF Appeals, who said he represented
interests which objected TO certain certificates OF
nomination for judicial offices. Senator Thomas
F. Grady also in attendance.
MR. HILLS ARGUMENT.
Ex-senator Hill and the other attorneys rep
resenting the Independence League contended
that a multiple certificate OF nomination, nomi-
mating candidates for Congress. Senate and AS
sembly, could not be deemed invalid If the
signers resided within the Assembly, Senate
and Congress districts for which the nomina-
tions were sought to be made. Mr.. Hill urged
the court to be liberal in its construction of the
law He held that there was no express lam
guage in the election law prohibiting multiple
certificate OF nomination, and in its absence
certificate of that character should be held valid.
III I were a judge" he said. 81 would give
this law liberal interpretation"
The law, he held. designed TO give voters.
If they so desired opportunity to vote for
candidates OF their choice in a particular coll
umn.
The principal argument behalf Of the re-
spondents was presented by A. s. Gilbert. He
held that a multiple certificate was not permit
ted by the election law. 1T never was. and
iature," he said TO permit different certificates
TO be filed in four different Assembly districts
and to require the Board OF Elections to exam
ine all OF those papers and to take out of each
one OF them theoretically, though not physically,
enough TO make up one certificate
Daniel f. Cohalan represented the Democratic
candidates. and his arguments were connned
for the most part TO specific cases. Two hours
of the session were devoted TO arguments made
by a score of other attorneys on behalf of re-
spective candidates.
The contest arising over the nomination by
the Independence League of judicial candidates
was the final matter considered. Charles L.
Jones' representing the judiciary Nominators,
objected to the placing OF the Independence
League candidates who are the Democratic nom
tnees for Supreme Court justices and justices Of
the Special Sessions. and Judge Rosalsky. Re-
publican, for the latter bench. in the column
designated by a balanced scales which Is that
Of the Independence League. The courts below
ruled that the nominations could be placed in
that column. Mr.. Jones cOntended that the In
dependence League, corporation, die not have
the power 10 say what local candidates should
be in the column with the state candidates of
the league He held that they should be in an
independent party column by themselves
Ex-Governor Black, for Judge Rosalsl1y, held
that the league had the power TO make the
designation but If il did not, the ticket which
Judge Rosalskys name appeared was entitled
League column.
Mr.. Cohalan argued that the ticket nominating
MIR. McAvoy should have been the one placed
in the Independence League column instead Of
that Of Judge Rosalsky.
The Independence League labor candidates sac
rihced by Hearst 10 make room for Murphy's Tam
many Hall nominees, are:
FOR CONGRESS
Harry B. Davis, 18th District
FOR SENATOR.
Thomas F. Long, 18th District
Thomas Rock. l4th District.
James N. Lyon 20th District.
FOR ASSEMBLY.
John Brandie lst District
William McCOTt, "a District.
Godfrey Lehner, 5th District.
Louis Harris. Sth District
c. H. Hussey. 9Th District.
Anthony McCa.be, 10th District.
Thomas GlOster, llth District
w II. Hammond, l4th District.
T F OConnell, 10th District.
Timothy Healy 18th District
B. F Burger 22d Distri4i
Frederick .. Riley, oath District.
James H. DoTney. 25th District
Samuel Greenberg, 26th District.
William Kerns, 32d District
John Holloway. 33d District
William r. O'Conne, 35th District.