Evening journal., 1914-07-11
WILL amend THE
HANDANUS petition petition
Court Allows Continuance
Until Wednesday After Pre-
liminary Argument is Heard
REPUBLICANS
OPPOSE WRIT

superior court met IN special session
at ll.30 o'clock this morning to consider
the mandamus petition filed by James
salisbury, chairman OF the Democratic
City Committee, against the Depart
ment of Elections, compelling il TO re-
wise its list Of registration officers by
taking of the names OF several Demo
Gratis who We're appointed by the cleo
tion board without the consent of the
Democratic committee. The election
board was required to show cause why
writ Of mandamus should not be is
/ sued
Judges Royce, Conrad and Rice were
on the bench. Philip L. Garrett and
Frank i. Speakman represented the De
partment Of Elections, and Robert 9.
Harman appeared for the Dehocratie
committee.
Mr.. Harman first rend Mr.. Sauls-
! bury's petition, in which the Demo-
cratic chairman alleges that on May %
he filed with the election board a list
of names, containing three registrars
for each election district. The Depart
ment Of Elections on June Is announced
the appointment Of registration officers
containing the names of six officers
whose names We're not ON the list sub
mitted TO them by Mr.. Salisbury.
These names were. James l.. 1aggart,
assistant registrar, Fifth district Of Sec
ond wards James J. Riley, Third dis
trict Of Third ward William ii. Blake,
Fifth district OF Third ward G. Der
rickson Tenth district, Seventh ward;
Hugh McDonough. Third district. Tenth
ward and Miles Jennings, Eleventh dis
trict Tenth ward.
Mr.. Saulsburys petition further al
leges that on June % he notified the
department that the appointments
were Illegal and requested the Depart
ment to make appointments from the
list furnished by the committee,
which the department refused to do.
Mr.. Salisbury alleges the continuance
of these men in the office was illegal
and harmful to the Democratic party
Mr.. Garrett, representing the cleo
tion board, when Mr.. Harman had con-
cluded. moved that the court dis
charge the rule issued and dismiss
the petition filed, and in support of
the motion gave four reasons, which
are as follows
/. That the said petition does not
show upon its face a clear right to
the relief demanded.
2. That the allegation Of facts
made in said petition are argumenta-
tive. uncertain, not specific, not posi-
tive and insufficient
8. That it appears in and by said
petition that there Is no duty i'm
posed upon said respondents to per-
form the ACT complained of
the said petition that the said re-
spondents have failed to perform any
ministerial duty imposed upon them
by law.
MIR. Garrett then read the law gov
erning the Department OF Elections
in the appointment Of the election
officers. He contended that the
names given the board Dy Mr.. Sauls-'
bury were of men not properly
qualified to act as registration officers
aad were thrown out by the depart
ment He declared that nothing had
teen shown to prove that the depart
ment did not appoint properly quali-
Ge6 persons; that the petition did not
srecify whether the men appointed
were Republicans Socialists, Pro-
gressives or Democrats.
Mr.. Garrett said further that the
petition did not allege that the de-
partment did not select the names,
to fll out the list, from a list fur
nished by the executive committee Of
tho Democratic party.
Mr.. Garrett then read number Of
similar cases in which application
for mandamus had been made, which
had been settled in other courts.
MIR. Garrett in these cases en-
deavored to show. that the Depart
ment Of Elections has the power to
act to their best judgment and dis
erection in such cases.
Mr. Garrett contended that the De-
partment OF Elections has absolute
power to dismiss any registrar at any
time and fill his place with another
man. He stated that the day after
the appointments We're made the
board could turn out all the regis
trars and name others. He asked
that the petition be dismissed on the
ground that the board had acted
within its rights In making the APP
pointments.
In reply TO Mr.. CARROTS arguments,
Mr.. Harman stated that while the De
partment Of Elections could use its dis
cretion in the matter, yet il was man
datory upon the department TO make
the appointments from the list submit
ted to it by the chairman Of the Demo
cratic committee.
Mr.. Harman read from the law on the
subject the following: Prom this list
the Department of Elections shall make
these appointments" meaning the list
furnished by the Democratic chairman.
Mr.. Harman contended that il is pos
sible for an arbitrary and unlawful dis
cretion to be used which would defeat
the purpose of the law. He further
contended that nothing had been offered
to show that the names on the list sub
mitted by Mr.. salisbury were not
qualified to fill the Offices Mr.. Harman
in his address pointed out that under
the law the department has the power
to remove any registrars for proper rea
sons, but they are required to fill the
vacancies in a legal manner from the
list submitted to them by the chairman
Of the Democratic committee as pro-
vided for by the law
In conclusion Mr.. Harman con-
tended that the Democratic chairman
in strict accordance with the law,
submitted six names of persons all
properly qualified. who were dismiss
cd by the board without any reason
for so doing appearing on the record,
and their places filled by persons
whose names were not on the list
He asked the court TO issue the writ
Of mandamus 10 have these six men
removed and their places filled by
six men whose names are submitted