The news-democrat. (Providence, R.I.) 1906-1909, 1907-07-05
COURT DENIES
WRIT IN THE
FIRST WARD CASE
CONTINUED from Page one.)


view of the matter, of course. The whole
question Is viewed as a legal one Judge
Blodgett does not go out OF his way,
though TO bring up his pet idea that a
member OF political committee is not
the holder OF a public office. and intl-
mates. though he does not say So that the
matter is scarcely OF sufficient dignity To
interest the court.
A lawyer who read the opinion said
There is something wrong here The
state takes control OF the Democratic and
Republican organizations and says Just
how We may use the name, and the only
way we may use the party name. We
go into court and are cavalierly treated,
that Is. according to my view OF the mat
ter i am forced TO believe the court Is
giving us only what IL finds TO be law but
the conditions now prevailing places both
parties subject TO the whims OF motor
ious unfair and partisan board OF can
vassers"
The case was brough before the court
on a petition for writ OF certiorari
Judge Blodgett says: THE case present
ed is not a case which justifies the inter-
position OF the court in this form OF pro-
ceeding
THE finding OF the board OF can
vassers and registration was that said
caucus was illegal and void and that
no person was legally elected thereat
TO any office or nomination. The
certiorari is that the proceedings OF
said board therein may be reviewed
and that the decision OF said board
so far as IL declares said caucus IL
legal. may be quashed and the vote
OF said caucus electing petitioners to
said office OF said committee may be
carried out and that the petitioners
may have such other and further re-
lief as the circumstances require
Were the prayers of the petition TO be
granted. IL would require the court
not merely to hold that the caucus in
question was legal and valid caucus
but 10 decide which set OF two op-
posing candidates were elected thereat
and that, too, in a proceeding to which
neither the present holdover members
OF said committee, nor the candidates
in opposition to the petitioners at said
caucus, are~~or can be properly made
parties or be served with process and
In which no judgment of custer could
be entered.
This obviously involves a hearing OF
the case upon its merits and upon evil
dence. More than this, II Is legally pos
sible that even were II a legal and valid
caucus there might still be no election
by reason OF n tie vote for opposing can
dtdates. The case Is different from that
which would be presented had the de-
cision below affirmed the validity OF the
action OF the caucus and the writ We're
sought to obtain a decision here that the
caucus was invalid. in which case II is
apparent that the determination that the
caucus was illegal ad quashing the de-
cision below ipso facto would determine
that there was no election thereat."
Judge Blodgett quotes with approval
these words from a Missouri decision 1T
is bad policy to attempt to impose party
contests OF this kind on the courts. II.
L..
powers purely political In their nature
and TO constitute the courts managers Of
the affairs OF the political parties. And,
besides being inappropriate, II is also
inexpedient.
Judge Blodgett's ideas on the question
involved are as follows: "The board had
full Jurisdiction If not final Jurisdiction OF
the question before them and their pro-
ceedings were regular in form. II they
erred In requiring more evidence than
was necessary to convince them of the
election Of the petitioners, certiorari does
not lie to correct such an error. Indeed
the case presented does not appeal even
TO our judicial discretion since 1t does not
appear that any steps have been taken to
punish those who were guilty OF sup
pressing the evidence which should have
been taken TO punish those who were
guilty OF suppressing the evidence which
Whether certiorari in any case would lie
to try the title TO public Office, it is not
now necessary to determine, inasmuch as
IL was determined in Atty. Gen. VS.. Lu-
cey, that membership In a political com
mittee is not public office. So that in
strictness OF speech no public question
is here involved, but rather question as
TO who are representatives OF a SUBJ
division OF local organization OF a vol
untary association of fiuctuating member
ship called a political party. where MEM
bers may aggregate at anv given time
only two out OF every one hundred voters
In the community and that question Is
sought to be determined. Moreover, upon
evidence I'm certiorari proceedings"
This decision of the court makes IL pos
sible for the Republican machine to take
complete control OF the Democratic or
ganization In this city and Pawtucket.
It makes II possible to under any caucus
Illegal by simply tearing of n corner of a
check list used at any caucus.