The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-06-07
.FERRAND|N| ASKS
FOR INJUNCTION
Wants Court to Prevent Commit
tee From Placing Annexation
Issue on Ballot.
WOULD VIOLATE BYRD LAW
Inclusion of Referendum, He
Claims, Would Render Pri-
mary Election Illegal.
WOULD VIOLATE BYRD LAW

Committees proposal to place on the
primary election ballots next week
! the words for against reference
OF annexation ordinance" Frank Fer
randini. member of the same COM
mittee appeared before Judge Beverley
| T. Crump, of the Law and Equity
Court, yesterday and asked for an in
| junction to restrain Walter G. Duke
and the other thirty eight members NJ
the committee from putting the nlon
into effect.
| Judge Crump listened to two hours
/ OF argument presented ably by oppos-
! ing lawyers. and at 2:35 o'clock de-
ciared an adjournment to $3.50 o'clock
! this morning, when the hearing on
! the injunction application will be re-
sunied. He told the lawyers that he
would probably be able to render his
decision at o'clock this afternoon.
/ Supporting Mr.. Ferrandini nnneared
Attorneys Charles V. Meredith. Edgar
Is. English and Kirk Mathews. Attor-
neys Miles NJ Martin and r. r. Flor
ance, both members of tho City Demo-
cratic Committee. presented argument
against the granting Of the injunction
eliminates IntcrentinS FiRh
! The action brought to n china. a
/ dinerence between members of the CITY
Democratic Committees subcommittee
/ on plans. which has gained momentum
| steadily since it first came to the nuh-
D u
plans committee submitted to the pa
rent body majority and minority
report. the former favoring and the
latter opposing the plan for submitting
10 inc electorate direct referendum
on the annexation question
, Both reports were laid on the table
and a substitute resolution adopted
authorizing the placing on the ballots
of the words, FOR or against reference
of annexation ordinance" with the idea
I
or not they would authorize the CITY
Council to submit the annexation ordi-
nance to plebiscite. The substitute
resolution was from the beginning on
posed by Mr. Ferrandini. who held that
the city Democratic Committee had no
right to place on the primary ballots
anything but the names of the candi-
dates. The committee. he insisted can
authorize primary election only under
the terms and requirements of the
Quotes BYRD Inv.
! In support OF this view. Mr. Fer
randini, in his petition to the court
yesterday. submitted section is of the
| Byrd Law. which reads:
The primary ballots for the several
| parties taking part in primary shall
be printed and delivered to tho judges
of election by the city or county com
mittees of the parties holding the Iri-
mary. These ballots shall be official,
! siiiN siiiii NC composed. arranged, print
ed and provided in the same manner
/ as the official election ballots. except
AS herein provided.
Across the head Of each Official prim-
! AIRY ballot shall be printed In plain,
/ black type first. The name OF the polit-
/ ical party, the names of whose can
! didates are printed thereon, and i'm
mediately underneath the following
/ words: Primary Election Ballot"
/ The official election ballots men
/ toned in the foregoing section of the
| Byrd Law. Mr.. f-errandin holds, in
/ his bill Of complaint. is described in
/ Section 12I OF the Code OF Virginia,
1901. which provides, among other
i thinSs. trat only the OF the
! candidates TO be voted for shall be
/ placed the ballot"
Asks for Injunction.
ON the grounds just enumerated the
plaintin asked for a restraining or
der against Secretary Walter G. Duke
and other members of the city
| Democratic Committee to prevent
them from putting into practice the
committees resolution which. he held.
would make the coming primary cleo
! ton illegal and void
/ The argument centred about the
Byrd primary law and it's elasticity
/ Attorneys Meredith. English and Mat
news held with Mr. Ferrandini that
! the BYRD law stated specifically the
conditions under which a legalized
/ primary coulC be held. and that n Gr-
paftuFe from .ts provisions was
| enough 10 render an election without
(. force.
Chairman Miles NJ. Martin o! rhe
CltE Democratic Committee held that
the committee was acting Within it's
powers IN placing the disputed words
on the ballot. In securing an express
| sion from the voters on the submit
ID =
saiu' me committee was acting for the
pest interests of the party s strict
compliance with the language restrict
ing ne printing on the ballots to the
Names o, candidates only, he thought,
would prohibit the Inclusion of the
words; vote for five" and other
phrases of similar nature. He in
stanced ruling OF the late Judge In
gram In l9oS, which appeared to sup
port MS position. Attorney IHlorancc
held the Same general views.
II Defendants File Answer.
On behalf of Secretary walter g.
Duke and the other members of the
City Democratic Committee named as
defendants In the bill of complaint
Attorneys Martin and F'lorance filed
the following answer:
Iaese defendants deinur to the Bill
or complaint because the sane is in
sulhcient In law, and for grounds OF
demurrer assign the following
THE compliments bin does not
snow that he is in any way injured
or deprived of any right b. the action
Of the defendants complained Of.
2-Neither the ballot nor tie nrlm-
airy is IN any way invalidatcd or made
planned Of
S-That the remedy. If any he has,
would be on appear to the state Cen
trail Democratic Committees:
Accomplishment fails to show that
the action o. the defendants is con-
trary TO- or subversive. of any regu-
lation or rule made by the proper au
ttorities of the Democratic Marty,