Brownsville herald. [volume] (Brownsville, Tex.) 1910-current, 1912-11-05
BROWNSVILLE DAILY HERALD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5. 1912


was deceived by the error, would not in
validate such election. Our position up
on his proposition is clearly stated in
eye" VOlum ID, page 342. But a mis-
take Of an officer by whom the prelimin-
AIRY steps for holding a local election
must be taken in calling it forthe wrong
day. will not necessarily be fatal if it
appears that the election was fairly and
honestly conducted and that no voter
was deceived by the error"
Second: That this being a purely party
matter, only members OF Inc Independent
Party could possibly show injury from
the holding OF these party conventions
upon q day other than that fixed by the
Terrell Election Law, and hat the In
didates of an opposing party could not
be heard to question the regularity or
nominations made at such convention.
The Supreme Court Of Texas in the
case OF Kulp vs.. Railey. as late as 1905.
pses this language: 1T is not at all
clear that the right is given to a nom
.incc of one party to object to thcpla cling
upon the official ticket of the opposing
party the name of Il person as its candi-
date. upon the sole ground that such r"'
son has not regularly received the nom
~ination of that party"
Third: That the plaintiffs were not en-
titled to the relief sought because it was
impossible for them to show irreparable
injury without specializing upon the re-
suits Of an election. a thing which the
law does not countenancc or permit in
such connection.
Fourth: That a District court is alb
s~clutely without jurisdiction to grant
the relief sought because it involved
passing upon a political question. the
which it could not do. except by express
grant of jurisdiction; and that III this
case. no jurisdiction EXCEED. because no
character OF procedure mas been provid-
ed by the Legislature for Il proceeding of
this character.
Fifth: That if any character of pro
cedure whatever has been established by
the legislature. it is tina; contained III
those Articles OF the Terrell Election
Law having to do with the contest OF
primary elections and conventions. Ger
family there are no others. If these be
held to apply, then the our had no Iur-
isdiction. because this contest was not
filed within the time provided by these
Articles, and no notice was served upon
the defendants or cOntestees, as required
by these Articles.
Section 100 of the Terrell Election
Law. under which these nominations
were made. provides: "All nominations
made by any such parties shall be Ger
testified to the county clerk by the chair
nan OF the county committee of such
party. and utter taking the sdBac coHrsc
~ "~omindiions Of other parties certified
TO the clerk. shall be printed on the Oil
cial ballot. etc"
Section 131 of the Terrell Election
| Law provides that after such certificate
is filed with the county clerk. the latter
shall cause the list of names so certified
to be printed i'm some newspaper pub
lished in the county, OF if no newspaper
is published in the county, then he shall
nest the list of such names in at least
five public places in the county; and I'M
meoiateIy after this provision we find
the following: provided, that all OBJ
iections to the regularity or validity OF
il nomination of any person whose mar"
appears lin said list, shall be made with
ii five davs. etc. "In ease
no such objection is filed within the time
prescribed. the regularity or validity 81
the domination of any person whose
name is so printed, or posted. shall not
be thereafter contested"
Again Art. Ill provides that such GER
tifcatc of nomination shall be subject TO
review upon allegations of fraud or IL
legality. by the district court provided
that such allegations are filed in said
court within ten days after the issuance
of said certificate, etc.
In our present case. the certificate re-
manned with the county clerk for over
thirty DAYS before any character OF at
tack was filed i'm the district court.
Sixth: That under no circumstances
was the Judge authorized to hear or rem
der any decision or Judgment over q case
Of this character in vacation (and 1T
should he understood that the only iudg-
ments or DEGREES rendered by the district
iudce in the case under discussion were
m~de in chambers-that is. in vacation
In the case of Ashford VS.. Goodwin.
the Supreme Court of Texas in 1910.
decided that that portion of the Terrell
Election Law which undertook to make
80 -, -vto In thu