Watertown leader. [volume] (Watertown, Jefferson County, Wis.) 1909-1911, 1909-12-03
DODGE COUNTY JURIST SUSTAINS
STATE DEMURRERS IN SUIT TO
TEST ACTS VALIDITY.
SUPPORTS ATTORNEY GENERAL.
Quotes from Early Decision of Supreme
Court to Establish Constitutionality
of Enactment of 1903.
STATE OFFICERS NOT RESTRAINED

MADISON, Wis, Dec. q Special j
Attorney General Frank l.. Gilbert to-
day received a decision from Judge Mar
! tin S. Lueck of Dodge county. by which
the latter upholds the Wisconsin primary
election law, sustaining the states de-
murrers on all points.
The suit was brought by \. b. Van
Alstire of Appleton to restrain the secre-
tary of state and the stale treasurer.
from performing their duties in holding
such election next year
This law was passed by the LegisIa-
ture of 1903 and became effective by
the ratification. of the people in 1904
Constitutionality Questioned.
The law was alleged to be unconstitu-
tlonal on five grounds, each being made
cause for action.
The case was argued November %
before Judge Lueck, who was called in
by Judge Stevens. The plaintiff was
represented by Senator Lehr and Charles
Lamb and Attorney General. Frank L.
Gilbert and Assistant Attorney General
Russel Jackson appeared for the state
The decision was handed down
Wednesday. All of the demurrers are
found to be well taken and are accord
ingly sustained.
Quotes Supreme Court.
Inc court holds that While there is a
division OF authority upon the question
of the power of the Legislature to sub
nit law to popular vote, that the su-
preme court of this state in an early day
passed upon this question i'll the case OF
Smith VS.. GAINESVILLE, 26 Wisconsin, and
Judge Lueck says:
Il deem it unnecessary to look beyond
the decision of our supreme court be-
cause the question has been settled in
this state bpEOuI cOptrOyppSy
On the second cause for action he
holds that the law was published in ac-
cordance with the provisions of the CON
stitution and the statutes He says: No
more than one publication was required
and the essential one was made. The
law was in force on publication but linn
lted as tC It's taking effect upon the CON
tlngency Of the popular endorsement
In the third point, he holds that while
the law substituted new method of
nominations which does away with the
caucuses and conventions, it does not
abridge the right of the people to assem-
BILE and consult for the rights of the
common good.
Law Is Reasonable.
In the fourth point, relative to the
limitation as to the number of names on
a nomination petition, he says. the law
is reasonable and is a regulation within
the power of the Legislature to enact
It does not deprive the citizen of any
substantial right.
The provision relative to the nomina-
ton for United States senator he SAYS
is not coersive but is merely a recon-
mendation by the people of their choice
On this point he says it will be OBJ
served that no pledge or promise
of any kind is exacted of candidates for
members of either branch of the Legisla-
ture. Each member of that body is free
to vote for a candidate as his choice
Mere Recommendation.
The effect of such a nomination is
mere accommodation by the people as
10 their choice for United States senator"
says Judge Lueck. One of the rights
expressly preserved by the constitution
is that of the people to petition the gov
eminent or any department thereof
in my opinion it would require a mar
row construction to hold the law invalid
merely because it affords the people a
means by which they may express their
choice for the important office of sena-
tor"
The findings of the court closes with
instructions that the defendants attor-
neys draw formal opinion sustaining
the demurrers in all points.
1t is probable that the case will be
appealed at once to the supreme court
and if so. it will probably be tried at
the January term of court.