The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-10-26
WAR OYER HEARST PETITIONS
COURT CURIOUS ABOUT NOMI-
NATION BY CORPORATION.
u Goes on Record That the Independence
League IL Al Incorporated Club whose
Directors Are the Hearst Executive
Committee, DIctatOrs OF Candidates..

League IL an Incorporated I whose
Directors Are the Hearst Executive
Committee, DictatOrs OF candidates.
Nearly a hundred election disputes were
before the Appellate Division of the Su-
preme Court yesterday on appeal from
! pro forma orders made at Special Term
confirming The rulings of the Board OF
Elections.
A few Of the cases were argued as tests.
Decision was reserved in all but three or
four minor instances, and it il expected
that the court will land down most OF its
decisions this afternoon.
The fight over the judiciary nominations
took up most of the time. Charles l.. Jones,
for the Judiciary Nominators, who object
to the substitution OF Brady for Breen on
the Independence League ticket, said
that it was contrary to the spirit OF the
law for a candidate already on one ticket
to be named independently by petition on
another. The whole thing, he said, was
simply a scheme on Brady's part TO get
under the scales emblem as well IA the star
Melvin G.. Palliser replied that the
nomination Of Brady by petition was regular
and an original nomination. Palliser
spoke at some length about the lndepen-
dence League, which. he told the Court,
was IAN Incorporated club, a corporation
so the nominees Of the league are all
corporation candidates, aren't they said
Justice Clarke, smiling.
The ordinarily quiet court room ~resounded
with laughter. Palliser' managed 10 re-
spond Not exactly" but dropped that
line Of argument as he would a hot poker.
Next came the question whether Otto A.
Rosalsky was properly on the league ticket,
instead of McAvoy.
/. The main issue presented by the McAvoy
case. said Mr.. Limburg, was whether or
not the member OF the league we're to de-
eide who should be their candidates or
whether non-members could come in under
the emblem by simply getting signatures
to a petition circulated by themselves.
I'VE make no claim as a corporation
said Mr.. Limburg. ito the power to noml-
nate, but We do claim the sole privilege Tor
our members TO determine who shall be their
candidates"
Justice Scott asked il the executive com
mittee Of the league were also the directors
of the corporation, and Mr.. Iimburg said
thew were.
Daniel r.. Cohalan argued for McAvoy
that the directors of the league corporation
could not avoid their responsibilities as
such. and that the men who first nominated
Rosalsky were certainly not Hearst men.
The McAvoy nomination. Mr. COhalan SAID,
was perfectly regular and should be upheld.
Gov. Black. who represented Rosalsky,
replied that the Rosalsky petition and not
tina for McAvoy rae the sanction OF the
leagues executive committee. The whole
question was one OF good faith, said Gov'
Black, and he asked the court not to APP
prove the efforts Of outsiders ITO steal the
livery Of the Independence League that
they might aid their own ticket.
The Shober Bennett dispute in the Seven
teenth Congress district was a test case
for a number Of instances where l~ndepend-
ence League petit ons circulated Tor the
Tammany candidates have borne on a
single petition the names of candidates
for the Senate for Congress and tor AS
sembly The question submitted was
whether seDarste petitions we're not neces- o
sary.
In the Quinby- Riordan case and two
OF three others awe" LimburR asked
the Court tn take 'ptO CONSIDERATION his
| afidayits that he petitions az originally
filed contaIneC more NAV the necessary
| number Of names. bu' when they we're
examined by the Board OF Elections many
pages of names had been ebs'-acted or torn
out, evidently TO destroy the value OF the
petition. In consequence the number OF
names was insufficient and the Quinby
and other petitions were thrown out,
MIR. Cohalan replied that the probability
seemed 10 Do Lldt Int ptllllDl urn WI
tanned many forged signatures and that the
persons guilty Of the foTger.es had torn
out the pages to conceal their crimes. He
recalled the fact that the Hearst pettions
last year had been shown TO he fraudu-
lently gathered in many Instances.
FRANKLIN Quinby pleaded his case to the
Court himself and said that AT least POO
had been torn from his petition. He begged
the Court to accept his statement OF the
fact and give him credit for a full petition.
Tlnrarce 7 Shaarn also nDDP9 red and
told the court that a similar tate would
probably nave befallen the certificates
filed by the Independence League with the
Secretary Of State had the Lacquer not
taken the precaut on to nave duplicates
OF each cert ificate.
Justice InEraham looked strenly at Mr..
Shearn and remarked.
What warrant have you, sir. for thus
assailing the int gritty and honor OF the
Secretary Of State. How do you know
J that he would have refused TO accept the
certificate and have committed a crime'''
Mr.. Shearn replied; He refused to give
US n receipt, to which we we're entitled
The statute does not require "a receipt
said Justice Ingraham. $50 how we're you
entitled to onep"
There is no statute" replied Shearn
that says q man shall have ordinary right
and justice, yet he is entitled to IT," .
The Court upheld the action OF the Board
of Elections ir rejecting the petitions OF
Christie Sullivan in the Thirteenth Senate
district and Of r. r. Wagner in the Twenty
second Assembly district.
The Grady-Rock case was among the
last to be argued. Grady was there in
person, and Rock was represented by
that Senator Grady had no right to an
Independence League nomination and
should not force himself on the ticket.
Grady replied that he had no personal
wish to be on the Independence League
ticket, but that he objected to Rock, an
enrolled Republican, seeking to get under
the scales emblem. Many Of the signatures
on the Rock petition were forged, said
Grady. and the petition should have 20
consideration in a court OF law.