Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1910-05-19

Engerud is that the act only intend.
ed general expression of choice for
senators when two are to be elected,
and that it does not show that it
was intended that there should be a
designation of the particular terms
of each candidate, when two are to
be elected, and that this court cannot
properly supply an commission by the
legislature to express such intent. 1t
- further commended by him that IL it
IS not held that the court should not
supply this omission of the legislature
yet under the general principal that
the intent OF the legislature as ex-
pressed in the act should be carried
out, the court would not be justified
In saying that it was the legislative
infant that there should be a designa-
ton as to what particular Office the
candidate applies for. We will BRIEF
ly consider these propositions.
The argument advanced, that it is
always entirely immaterial to the vot-
er which candidate shall be elected
for the long term or the short term,
Is not necessarily true. However,
the question here is, docs the statute
give the voter the right to express
a choice on the question of the term
of Office to which a candidate as.
pires?" If so, no candidate should
be permitted to file a petition which
necessarily denies that right to the
voters.
Reliance is placed on section ~,
of the act, which prescribes that
where there is more than one person
to be. elected to the same office, the
persons to the number to be elected
receiving the highest number of votes
cast. for such Office shall be declared
the nominees of the party for such
Offices" In view of what we have be-
fore stated, this section can have no
application to the question before US.
The Offices to be voted for are differ
ent, inasmuch as they are not for the
same term. Therefore this section
is not applicable to a case where,
strictly speaking, different officers are
to be voted for.
Giving the law a reasonable con-
struction with a view of carrying out
the intent thereof; which is to secure
an expression Of the voters choice
for the United States senator. we are
convinced that it indicates an intent,
and therefore must have been in
tended, to call for an expression of
the voters choice, so far as the ten
ure Of the office to be filed is con-
cerned. The intent of the law was to
place the voters in the position of |
members of the legislature, and per.
NIT them to express their choice for |
United States senator at any primary
election wherever one or two are to |
be elected at the next session of the |
legislature.
1t Is commended with great force and |
plausibility that the will of the voter
may be thwarted entirely If voters
are compelled to specify the particu.
lar term for which they desire a per.
son to become candidate. The point
OF this contention is that the can.
dtdate receiving the next highest vote
for the long term may receive larg.
er number Of votes than the highest
number OF. votes cast for any candi-;
date for the short term, and that thei
person receiving the next highest
number of votes for long term mayl
be and probably would be, the choice
for the short term, If they are per.
mitted to express themselves gener-
ally. In consequence of this POSSIBLE.
1ty, 1t Is urged that the construction
contended for by the relator would
result in defeating the will of the
majority of the voters as to first
choice for the short term of the can.
didate receiving the next highest
vote for the long term. It is there
fore contended that the legislature
could not have intended to deprive tho
voters of the right to express their