New-York tribune., 1906-10-31
LEAGUE WINS ITS CASE
TAMM4NY MEN HELPED.
Court of appeals Decision Sustains
Multiple Petitions.

clded Tonight that the making OF independent
nominations by multiple petition was not con-
trary. to the election statute and affirmed the
right of the Independence League to make such
nominations. The court also decided that in
case OF judicial nominations the certificate fled
first had prior claim. and that the Independence
League had right TO designate its o.n candi-
dates.
The decisions were handed down at 11:15
o'clock tonight. following a special session OF
the court, which convened at 2:sO o'clock to-day
for the purpose of hearing the appeals from
Appellate Division orders i'm the New York City
nomination cases
AS result of the decisions these candidates
will be placed in the Independence League COLI
umn on the official ballot:
Edward ]. Hannah. Labor and Independence
League candidate in the 18th Assembly District,
New York
Francis f. Shober Tammanv candidate In tba
nth Congress District
sherman S. Momand. Tammany candidate IN
18th Senate District
Charles V. Fornes. Tammany candidate in the
11th Congress District
William SOhmer, Tammanv candidate in tha
18th Senate District.
Henry NJ Goldfogle. Tammany candidate in
the 9Th Congress District
Judge Otto Rosalsky's name will also go into
the independence League column.
The nomination of John j. Brady for the su-
preme Court. the court held. could not be placed
In the Independence League column
The court dismissed the appeals in the other
cases on the ground that questions of fact were
involved which would have to be passed upon
by the Appellate Division. Under ordinary cir
cumstances these cases would be sent back to
the Appellate Division for review but this can
not be done, for the reason that the latter court
could not dispose of them in time to permit the
printing of the official ballot
DECISION BY THE WHOLE COURT
T.,Ior
the whole court. II follows:
Six OF the appeals before US are from orders OF
the Appellate Division reversing on the law onIy
decisions OF the Special Term. The sole oUes-
ton involved in these appeals is whether. when
certlncateS for Independent nominations are re-
quired to De filed in the same office. any one OF
such certificates shall be held invalid because AZ
Is made for the nomination of more than one
candidate, the electors making it being qualified
10 make certificate for the nomination OF all
the candidates mentioned therein. We find
nothing in the statute which forbids nominating,
@ Sslllllcdtes OF thls character; nor does there
seem 10 De any practical ground which would be
;h na.dI 20 tneir validity This is in accordance
win repeated decisions of this court and of the
Appellate Division that the election law should
De construed hberaEy to give effect to the will of
lne people These views lead to a reversal of
the order of the Appellate Division in these
eases eases ana 10 the atfrmance of the order of the
The foregoing relates to matter of appIica-
tion OF Edward J. Hannah; matter of the.sp-
pllcaton OF William s Bennet: matter of the
cation of Charles w Lefer; matter of the ap-
pncauon OF Samuel Hoffman. and natter~of tfs
application of Charles S. Adler
In certain OF the other cases the order of the
Appellate Division is based upon the ground
Ihat tne party appealing to the special term
from the determination of the Board OF Elec-
tlons had no sufficient standing for that pur-
pose not being a party to the proceeding In
this view OF the Appellate Division we concur
it being in accOrdasce with our previous decision
N N the matter of the Social Democratic party
QS2 y. Y. 422}.
= n tiOra
thlatter OF the application OF Samuel E. Terry)
mat the person nominated would be disqualiied
from election as member of Assembly because
q q commissioner OF deeds. we are of opinion that
that question cannot be determined in proceed
s mlss with reference to the certificate of nominal
tloh but must he left TO the Assembly TO deter
mine in case of his election. The case of the
People ex rel Sherwood VS.. State Board OF Can
vassers 029 " Y $500 decides onIv thar the
court will not give disqualified candidate af-
firmative relief. hut it does not authorize such a
proceeding as this TO have nomination de-
cared invalid
In the appeals relating to the nominat tfons for
Judicial offices. concur i'm the opinion of the
appellate dt Division that Mr. John J. Brady could
not under the statute be placed in the column
under the emblem of the Independence League
PRIOR PETITIONS GOOD.
As TO the contest between the several sets OF
Independence League nominations. we are of
opinion that The certificate first filed under that
title was eHtitled to preference; provided that
under the provisions of Section 56 of the EIec-
tlOn law. IL was filed by the same "IndeDendent
pttN WHICH nSti maze the state nominations
Whether 1he electors who Joined In the first
certificate. or those who made the second Ger
tlhcate, were the same Independent body" pre-
sented question of fact on which the decisions
of the courts below conclude US
In the remaining cases we are of OPINION de-
spite the forceful arguments behalf of some
OF the appellants. that the objections filed raised
issues of fact the determination of which rested
with the Board of Elections subiecr 10 ra,-ie,,-
by the Supreme Court in both branches With
Such determination we cannot interfere. as the
a1c
have been based question of fact and We
arc pfecluded from reviewing il. This principle
is equally applicable 10 d case where the AppsI-
late l1VtSion had reversed. to one where IL
has affirmed.
1t follows that in all of the other appeals. save
the six cases first mentioned. the order OF the
Appellate Division must be affirmed.
HILL REPRESENTS HEARST
In the argument which was held before The
court this afternoon ex-senator David r Hill
and Herbert y. I.mburg represented the Inde-
pendence League. Daniel T. Coha!an r. B. Mot
fatt and John Duling the Democrats orgaufzs-
ton. and y. 5. Gilbert William $ Bennett in the
argument before the court Louis A. Marshall.
of New York appeared for Congressman Cold
fogle.
The cases argued were the appeals in the ap-
plications of the following:
Edward ]. Hannah. 18th Assembly District.
William ;. Bennet- lIth Congress: Martin SAKE
18th Senate; Charles W. Letter. 11th Congress:
samuel Holman, 18th Senate. Charles s Adler
9th Congress; John G. Coleman, one case: Thomas
GloSter, llth ASSe. My; Godfrey r Isehner 9Th
Assembly; Thomas i. Long. 18th Senate: Frank
lyn Quinby, 18th Congress: Samuel r. Terry 34th
Assembly; Charles FL HuSsey. 9th Assembly.
William a kerns, I'D Assembly: Thomas Rock
| 14th Senate: Charles r.. CehIing Eth Congress
William T. Logan, in re Harrison. 18th Congress-
Il Els-,