Albuquerque evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1911-1914, 1911-10-30

which 10 was issued WAS not man.
dat1ry lie produced somewhat
lonrthy argument showing That fhc
statute, section OF Chaptrd lU5 ut
the compiled laws of 1903. was msH-
dWory only IN portions aud not
throughout
Mr. klock held that The court hud
uo right 10 issue writ OF nnndamus
when ~ Waa g.;mit7od by both sides
tn he controversy that the commits
F'oucrs had merely stated thcir In.
icniion vi appointing one election
Judge from each OF the three parties.
and had not as yet taken any def
init" action IN regard 10 The matter,
'uOi broken any statute" Wa tho way
Doc pEfased Il AIS whole argument to
Wash was based upon tho fact that
the court had mandamuscd the board
iu the exercise of a discretionary
power. as opposed TO q mandatory
power a duty laid upon 10 hy The law
Mr kiock stated the statute 90
contain the provisions allowing the
bonrd 90 select election judges from
among voters not named ip lists
filed us part county chairmon, and
said tH,s loft the matter In the pros-
ont case whore the lists fled hy Gilt
lenwHtrr aud by the Democrats were
incomplete placed tho whole matter
in the discretion Of the board
Mi Lester. appearing for tho Dem
orrats. stated that the intention 81
the statute was To- give Representa-
ION 40 every political faith ~ long
ns the list of Judges IN each precinct
held out at the rate Of one 20 "A
party ilc claimed that the word
dominant Boo the statute referred
only To- tine niing of the lists and not
tp al, appointment of the election
judges, which Doe said should not be-
chosen from the two dominant par
ties" atone Whpu there we're other
parties in existence.
Mr. kIock then said that the stat
Ute was not sufficiently mandatory to
strip the board of lts right OF soiec-
ton 90 candidates. should Tor any
reason u county chairman neglect 90
tile bits list ~, upheld the conten-
ton that in this event the board
might select ludsos from among any
competent electors ur precinct.
Mr. Lester said that the only man
datory portions ct the statute were
those compelling an" board 10 app
point three judges and prohibiting
them from appointing more than two
from the same political party.
The law requires the clprk 60 no.
thy the chairmcu ~ each political
party be- said. what is that for
unless it means that each shall have
cqunl representation
SIR Stanb. appearing for the proc
grossiyc Republicans. said that tho
court had erred h mandamusing "a
discretionary action ON the part OF
the board. He also upheld thu con
tcntiou 90 Mr. Lester that the only
mandatory portions of The act were
those stated by him.
Mr. Sinah held that Ia thr event
of the failure To- file complete list
of nine names Dos any county chair
man ana both he ana the others
opposing thu action az the court Inn
piled that nine names were nrccF-
sary 60 complete list, though none
OF them openly admitted 1.-THE
board might 60 outside the lists sub
mittcd and choose any persons whom
II wished. In this me- apparently
paved tho way for the commissioners
TO appoint one from the Republican
list. and then gu outside IA, list and
appoint ~ Democrat ana ~ pc sres-
sivc from tho other partial lists flled
with the clerk at the probate court,
Mr.. wood took the ground that the
statutes contemplated a limitation Of
the powers Of the county commission
crs. ana not as counsel for the oppose
ton contcnded an extension Ilc held
that the commissioners were Justified
In goiag Outside the lisr only when
there was NO list, and further con
strued that the word "lIst as used In
the statute In this connection meant
the complied list of an nominations
made by all parties. so that n only
one party nominated list OF Judges.
the commissioner would Dee bound to
take two from that list and the third
outside, and this only because 81 the
Limitation set hy the law Withholding
the commissioners from appointing
more than two Judges from amy one
party.
He stated that the commissioners
were required to notify every county
chairman because they were 10 give
all an equal chance Ia tilc lists, ana
because tho commissioners might not
know which were the two dominant
parties. He said the court was to de-
eide this question. To this the oppn-
sltion dcmurrcd, saying that there
was legal precedent for the court not
to take any hand la politics.
Ho made plain that the Republicans
did not wish to cut the Democrats en-
tircly on from having ono iudsc. out
thought that but ono was who's they
were entitled 90.
lie Is sin discussing the matter be-
foro the court.