The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1914-02-19
ONLY
OF CERTIFYING
SUPREME CoURT SO DECLARES
IN TEST SUIT OVER RIGHT
OF AicNULTY TO PLACE ON
PRIMARY BALLtgT.

Pierre, S. d. Following is the full
text of the supreme courts opinion in
the suit over the right of Judge Nc
Nulty to a place on the primary bal
lot:
The relator has instituted this
original action in mandamus lie COM
pei defendant. as secretary OF state.
to. certify the name of relator (JnGge
McNulty) as a proposed candidate
for congress to be voted for at the.
primary election March cath. 1914.
1t is alleged hat relator is a menu
Der of the republican party; that his
name has been regularly certified as
a proposed candidate for for
the second congressional district of
this state, by the regularly and duly
constituted minority proposal COM
mittee of the republican party; that
relator has duly signed and filed in
the office OF the secretary OF state
the declaration of a candidate re-
CURED by the Law. and that, AN
things required To be done, either by
the proposal committee, or members
thereof, and by relator. to entitle his
name to be certified, as a proposed
candidate for congress, to the several
county auditors of said district, have
been done and performed in strict
continuity with law. that defendant,
as such secretary of state, has refused
and viii refuse to certify and trans
NIT to said county auditors the name
of relator as 4 proposed candidate
for congress 10 be voted for at said
primary.
Defendant by his return to the al
tentative writ admits the regularity
of the form of certificate OF The min
ority proposal committees, proposing.
and certifying the name of relator as
such proposed candidate: but defend
ant contends that, as it ppears from
the petition OF relator that he was
elected judge of the circuit court, AT
the general election in 1910, and that
relator is at present still acting as
such judge. and has rendered his
resignation to take effect on the list
day of February. 1914. %relator is in
eligible and disqualified, under the
constitution of this state, to hold. or
to be voted for, as II candidate for
said office, in that all votes cast by
said proposal committee for relator
were void and of 10 effect. and that
said committee could not legally pro-
pose the name of relator as a candi-
date for such office. In The performs
ance OF his duties. the secretary of
state, i'll certifying the names of the
proposed Candidates to the several
county auditors. acts only in a minis
terial capacity, and when such a GER
tificate is presented to him. in due
form OF law, he has no judicial, or
quasi-judicial, power tt enquire into
or determine the facts recited in the
certificate OF such proposal com
mittee To ascertain their truth or
falsity, or TO determine whether such
certificates are constitutional or not.
State vs.. Blaisdell On. ID lis n. w.
225; s Cyc TS9; Hall vs.. People 80
N. Y. 49S; State VS.. Heard, AZ l.. r..
A. 512; County VS.. County. II Pac.
S5S; Ellingham vs.. Dye, 80 N. +. l.,
Section 81, Chapter 201, laws 1911.
Orchards Primary provides that
filing of Il committee proposal
or individual candidate proposal pc
tition' within the time and in the
and form provided III this
act, together with the declaration OIL
the candidate. shall be sufficient to
require that his name be printed up-l
on the primary ballot. No other con-I
dition shall be imposed /.
mo other condition shall be im-I
posed. Ii appears that the provisions !