Judsonia weekly advance., 1913-07-16

and the adjudication of political rights and the protection Of persons in theii enjoyment were not matters of eognt- zance by courts of equity when our con stitution was adopted. and the legisla- ture had power only to vest the Chan eery Court with jurisdiction beyond such matters as courts of equity at the com mon law exercised Jurisdiction in and such courts having no Jurisdiction oi election contests and the adjudication of political rights were given Hone by our said constitution. Our court has recognized this fact and in declaring an act of the legislature attempting to give chancellorS and chancery courts the right to hear primary election con tests void and unconstitutional. said:
 "Election contests for nomination are not matters of equity and have never ben so considered. and the act of the jurisdiction as to them is unconstitu- tional and void
 In the absence of a statute giving them Jurisdiction. the courts have no power to interfere with the judment of the committees and tribunals of es- tablished party in matters Sinvolving party government. discipline or the rCmination of candidates 15 Cyca 532.
 Nebraska Decision.
 In Phelps vs. Piper. 67 N. w, 755. the Supreme Court of Nebraska said:
 Political parties are voluntary as- sociations for political purposes. They establish their own rules They are governed by their own usages. Vot- CTS may form them, reorganize them. and dissolve them at their will. The voters ultimately must determine every such question. The voters constituting a party are. indeed. the only body who can finally determine between contend ing factions or contending organiza- tions. The question Is one essentially political, and not judicial, in it's charac- ter. It would be alike dangerous to the freedom of elections. the liberty of vot- CTS and to the dignity and respect, which should be entertained for judicial tri- bunals. for the courts to undertake in any case, to investigate either the gov ernment. uSageS or doctrine of political parties, and to exclude from the official ballot the names of candidates placed in nomination by an organization which a portion, or. perhaps. a large major ity, of the voters protesting allegiance to the particular party believed to be the representatives of it's political doc trines aud its party government. We doubt even whether the legislature has power to confer upon the court any such authority It is certain, however, that the legislature has not undertaken to confer it. We shall not enlarge upon the views we have expressed If au- thority were needed in their support, we think the underlying pronciples sug- geSted are those which governed the court in People vs. District Court IS
  SS Mich. 164, 40 N. W. 105; as well as in State Xs. Allen. supra.
 Stephenson vs. Board of Election Com missioners, 76 N w eMich) 9l6. Potter vS Deuel. 112 N. w 1071.
 It is contended, however. that appellee is given the right to contest the prt- mary election held under the provisions of Act 371 of the Acts of 1911.
 Tribunal Provided by Law
 It is true, that act does not provide the primary plPHfiOnS but it provides tribunals for the hear ing of such contests; in the filst in- stance. the Democratic Central Com mittee. with the right. of an appeal provides that the action of such trib- unal shall be final. It is true. that Section contains this provision:
 Provided nothing in this act shall be so construed as to prevent a person from pursuing any remedy he may have in the courts of this state
 This provision does not attempt to confer any right upon such contestant that he did not already have under the laws of this state before the pas sage of the act and unless he had such right before it's passage none is given by it.
 Legislature Cannot Give Authority.
 It has been expressly held that the legiSture is absolutely without power under the provisions of our constitu- tion to give the Chancery Court au thoritY to hear election contests and cer- tainly the authority to hear such con- tests and adjudicate the rights of the parties can not be implied from this act that expressly provides tribunals of the party for the determination thert- of and declares that their determinati651 shall be final
 It is suggested. however that sind 1, the legislature has legalized primaJy elections for the nomination of candi- dates to office and provided a tribunal for contesting such nomination that q court of equity will protect them in the rights given by the statute and that since an equitable remedy is asked that the court may grant it. if it shall not extend to trying the contest and declar ing the nominee.
 As already said, no equitable title or right is involved that can give juris- diction to a court of equity and inas- much as a politCial organization is an voluntary association, in which no rights of property or liberty are involved court of equity has no jurisdiction to interefere by injunction to control it's actions or those of it's of- ficerS.
 Injunction Not Applicable to Public
 Office.
 No principle of the law of Injunction is better settled than that injunction does not lie to determine questions Of to public office and the ti- tie thereto s they are a purely legal matter and cognlZable only in courts of law
 Anderson vs. Commissioners (W. ya) , l.. R. A. 331.
 "A court of equity will not interfere by injunction to prevent election off eerS or canvassing officers from doing their duty as required by law, nor pre- vent them from canyassing votes in a certain way" 5 A. and E. Enc. of Law 392.
 Arkansas Case Cited.
 In Rhodes vs Driver. 69 Ark sos. this court. quoted with approval from High on Injunctions Sec. 1912. as fol lows:
 No principal of the law of injunc- ton and perhaps no doctrine of equity Jurisprudence Is more definitely fixed or more thoroughly established than that courts of equity will not interfere by injunction to determine questions con corning the appointment of elections or public officers. or their title to of flee. such questions being of purely local nature. and cognizable only by courts of law. A court of equity will not permit itself to be made the form of determining the disputed questions of title to public offices, for the trial of contested elections, but will, in all such cases, leave the claimant of the office to pursue the statutory remedy remedy by proceeding in the nature of a quo warranto.
 See also: Adcock vs. Houck, Glenn. 122 $. w.. 979.
 Williford vs. State. 43 Ark, 63.
 Lucas vs. Futrell. 84 Ark. $50,
 The Democratic party as well as the legislature of the state. has provided