Evening journal., 1914-07-15

West sixth street IS physically dis
qualified
THAT Harry Long Of no. sl7 Mad
ison street does not reside at thl.
address
That William A. sbaffer. Of No
1915 West Eighth street. does not live
az that address
Ihat George n. Lackey. Of No. a1q
Market street whose name was on
the list is deceased
That Charles McDonough. of No
sSi West Second street. Is not ouali-
ned being a minor.
Numerous other cases we're cited Of
persons whose names we're on the uet
VINO had removed from the districte
er reasons.
Owing TO the length Of the respond
nets reply. Mr. Harman asked for
time TO go through n before making
a reply
The court granted recess Of 20
mlnutes TO Mr.. Harman. who retired
from the court room accompanied nv
Mr.. Salisbury Upon his return Mr.
haiman took up a number Of the al
legations SET forth In the respondents'
reply, stating that in a number Of
cases the respondents had stated that
the persons designated did not live
an the addresses specified but did not
say that the men did not live I'm tho
district
He stated that this was NOT an over
sight on the part Of the respondents.
as I'm other cases they specified that
the persons In question did not live
az the addresses given nor in the
district from which they were assign
ed He declared that In these cases
the persons might have moved from
one address 10 another and still re-
side in the same district. and as long
RS they resided in the district they
were properly qualified 10 serve aq
registration officers. He declared the
set forth I'm many of tho
'ases were vague and uncertain. and
'ontended that 20 should have been
specifically stated where the persons
lamed had removed from one address
whether they had removed out of the
district
He concluded by declaring that the
evidence in the case would warrant
he court in granting the mandatory
writ of mandamus
Philip T. Garrett. counsel Tor the
election board then read tho formal
ipphcation 10 have the alternative
writ dismissed. giving several reasons
Why the mandatory writ Of mandamus
should not he granted. chief OF which
vas the contention that the list sub
mitted 10 the board by Mr.. Salisbury
Gid not contain the names Of proper
y qualified persons. but was full of
srrors and omissions
He declared that the six names OBJ !
iected 10 by Mr Salisbury we're of
no importance 10 the Department of
Elections. but II was important to
hem 10 have the court pass on the 1
question as 70 whether they did or did I
not have the power 10 throw ont a list /
,f names. when the list Is defective /
and full Of errors. and appoint new /
names at their discretion He de- /
clared that the ruiing Of the court ]
20 matter what It might be. would be /
very important 10 tho Department Of /
Elections in guiding their future ac- |
lions.
Mr. Garrett then argued on the po- /
itical side Of the question, bringing |
put the point that there are several |
parties. the Socialist. Pro- /
libitionist. Progressive etc. and he /
wanted to know Il the Board Of Elec- /
tons should be compelled TO make
heir selections from the two leading
parties
Mr.. Garrett then read authorities
bearing on points in case which had
teen ruled upon IN other courts
At this point the court took a re-
ooes ,,ntft . 0'cionk