Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1906-11-01
HEARST'S LEAGUE
WINS LEGAL CASE
COURT OF APPEALS UPHoLps
THE MULTIPLE CERTIFICATE
OF NOMINATION
On This Point Court Gays Nothing In
Statutes Forbids Certificates Of That
kind-No Ground Fatal to Their
Validity Is Known.

Albany. N. Y, Oct. 31.-The court
OF appeals at 11:15 o'clock last night
handed down decision upholding the
multiple" certificate of nomination of
the Independent league of New York
county, which the Appellate division
last week threw out. The court on
this point says:
"The sole question involved In these
appeals is whether when certificates
for independent nominations are re-
quired to be filed in the same Office,
any one Of such certificates shall be
held invalid because 1t is made for the
nomination of more than one candi-
date, the elector making it being quail
flied to make certificate for the nom
ination Of sll the candidates mentioned
therein.
Statutes Not Against Certificates.
eve find nothing in the statutes
which forbids nominating certificates
Of this character, nor does there seem
to be any practical ground which
would be fatal to their validity This
in accordance with repeated decisions
OF this court, and of the appellate divi
sion. that the election law should be
construed literally to give effect tc
the will of the people
"These views lead to reversal oi
the order of the appellate division n
these cases and Of the aff1rmance o!
the order of the special term"
Restores Candidates to Ticket.
The foregoing ruling puts these can
| didates in the Independent league col
umn, from which they were ruled ou
by the Appellate division because the.
were on multiple certificate:
Edward ]. Hannah, labor and Inde
pendent league, Eighteenth assembl.
district; Francis e. Shaver (Tam
many, lSeventeeth congressional dis
i trict: Sherman s. Morand (Tammany
Eighteenth senate district; Charles v
Fornes (Tammany). Eleventh congres
sional district; William Shomer (Tam
many), Twelfth senatorial district
Henry M. Goldfogle (Tammany)
i Ninth congressional district.
4 AS to the other candidates throw
out by the Appellate division the cour
of appeals held that 1t had no juris
idiction to review the decisions, be
cause other objections than the "nnu
tiple" one had been raised to the pet
tions before the board Of elections
These other objections the appellat
Z division did not consider at all, bu
/. had merely thrown them out under tn
multiple" certificate ruling.
Refuses to Rule on All Points,
, Ordinarily under such circumstance
the court of appeals would have r.
mitted these cases to the appellat
division and directed 1t to pass on th
J. other questions on their merits, bl
!. Chief Justice Cullen declined to d
! this because the effect would be /,
! throw everything into what he terme
inextricable confusion. The cour
therefore dismissed all of the otht
appeals except in the judiciary case
where the decision of the appellat
/ division was in all respects affirmed.
AS a result of four of the appea
being dismissed by the court of a.
!. peals last night these names will ais
> go in the columns of the Independer
league:
t Francis B. Harrison (Tammany
: Nineteenth congress district; Jane
n A. Frawley (Tammany), Twentiet
e senate district; Leopold Prince (Tar
many), Twenty-sixth assembly di
trict; James v. Candy (Tammany
I ITwenty-fourth assembly district.
t David B. Hill appeared to argue fl
Ithe leaguers.