The Idaho Republican. [volume] (Blackfoot, Idaho) 1904-1932, 1910-10-14
SUPREME COURT COMMANDS
IANSDON TO CERTIFY

= The supreme court, in an oral opin
t ion delivered yesterday by Justic
b Ailshie, decided the Idaho election
e contest against Secretary of Stat
3 Lansdon, who sought a writ of re
t view directed to the state board O
= canvassers. The board had put VI
s to him for certification the nomina
5 tons of Gov. Brady and others OF
the republican ticket. The action O
| the court leaves the nominations un
) disturbed. Lansdon will now pro
coed to certify them to the county
auditors.
Aside from its great political i'm.
portance, as 1t assures the certifying
OF all nominees down to the county
auditors by Lansdon, the opinion is
OF tremendous legal significance and
vitality affects the public policy re-
lating to elections of all kinds in
the state of Idaho.
| Justice Ailshie enunciated the doc
trine that 1.-The courts will not under
any circumstances lay hold of &C.
tons; that the holding of elections
belongs to the political branch of
the government and is absolutely
beyond the control of the judicial
power of the state except insofar as
the law making body has specifically
vested such power in the courts
Distinguished lawyers who gather
ed in numbers. though having no d.
rect personal interest in the case as
counsel for either party, declared
that Justice Ailshie's opinion sets
tprecedents in all election matters;
that 1t sweeps aside ruthlessly the
doctrine put forward by the Colo
RADIO supreme court few years ago
that courts have rights and powers
and jurisdiction to issue mandatory
and directory writs of all kinds to
election officers, auditors and clerks,
and that the courts can control every
feature of elections OF any kind be-
fore, during and after the elections.
Opinion Very Plain
Justice Ailshie's opinion does not
mince words. 1t goes straight to the |
heart Of all things pertaining to the
connection between courts and cleo
tons. and in ringing sentences it
enunciates the doctrine in just those
words that 1T was not designed by
the American constitu that any
one department of government should
interfere with or control another:
that 1t is for the political power OF
the state within the limits of the con-
stitution to provide the manner in
which elections shall be held, the
manner of conducting the same and
declaring the result, and the mar
ner in which electionns shall be con-
tested if at all"
One of the startling syllogisms
laid down by Justice Aiish,a was that
The rights to vote anG hold office
ire not among the inalienab!e rights 1
Of the American people hut are mere
y conferred privileges primitive
nan had not the right to vote or TO
'old office" he said. therefore it is
lot an inherent natural light"
Justice Ailshie laid particular en-
'hasis in pronouncing the following
PORTION of his oral opinion. s
1T has been argued very forcibly c
~ counsel for plaintiff that in this |
ase there is no remedy by appeal G
10 remedy by mandamus, no remedy I
y contest, and that since there must o
G remedy for every wrong, he must v
q entitled to invoke the writ of re-
lew.
1T is maxim of the law that for &
very wrong or injury the law affords q
remedy. That has it's exceptions, II
oWever, the same as all other max II
ms and rules that have been devised h
y man, and that exception is to be d
'und peculiar to cases of election. A 8,
IAN may be defeated by all kinds of Il
'ul and unfair means having been NJ
sed against him with the electorate
the state, and yet he can find no q,
smedy in the courts. If he has any
'medy at all, he must seek IL before n,
lie people. This grows OUT of the ff
cry nature of popular elections m
Where Politics Differ til
"Falseho0d and Misrepresentation m
hich would vitiate a contract or af- pr
rd man relief in a civic action