Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1915-10-15
NOMINATION IN
DAUPHIN COURT
Constitutionality of the Non
partisan Judicial Act Also At
tackled in Proceedings
AFFECTS 6 CANDIDATES
Pittsburgh Lawyer Finds Fault
With Attorney General and
Makes Breezy Argument

| Constitutionality of the nonpartisan
judicial nomination act was attacked
in the Dauphin County Court to-day
and hearing given on that question
and on the dispute over the method of
computing the vote necessary to give
a candidate the right to be sole nomi-
nee to be printed on the ballot for a
! judicial office.
! The constitutionality was questioned
in suit brought by Fred S. Drake. a
candidate for Court No. 2. Philadel-
phia, who claims his name should go
on the ballot with three other candi-
dates, while the question over the
method of computing the 81 per cent.
of the vote came up in Mr.. brakes
action and in the mandamus proceed
ing brought by Stephen H. Huselton,
of Pittsburgh, to require the Secretary
of the Commonwealth to certify the
names of all six candidates for the
Superior Court and not the three who
received the highest number of votes.
| The Huselton case was the first to be
heard. The actions will occupy the
attention of the court all day.
Counsel for Mr. Huselton, Frederick
w. Kahle, of Pittsburgh, sharply at
tackled the opinion of Attorney Cen
eral Brown on the method of COM
putation and insisted that 1t was con-
trary to opinions given by the former
Attorney General, John G. Bell, and
by the late Justice Elkin, and based
on the assumption that each voter
voted for three candidates, which, he
asserted. was not the case.
States Name Out of 1t
At the opening of the case Deputy
Attorney General w. NJ. Hargest asked
and of the Attorney General be taken
OIL the Huselton petition because they
were used without his consent ano
attacked the Attorney Generals own
opinion. The court granted ths> mo-
ton after a protest by Mr.. Kahle.
sat with Mr.. largest and John G..
johnson. the eminent Philadelphia
lawyer, and Jesse e. B. Cunningham,
former Deputy Attorney General, rep
resented J. Henry Williams and George
B. Orlady, respectively. Mr.. Huselton
was also in court. G.. w. Carr, of
Philadelphia, represented Mr.. Drake,
with Charles H. Bergner, who was also
associated with Messrs. Johnson and
Cunningham.
The hearing of the case was at
tended by state and county officials,
as well as city officials, all of whom
were greatly interested in the matter.
Deputy Secretary of the Common
wealth Godcharles presented the Off
cial returns, showing that the vote of
the six candidates for Superior Court
aggregated 1,992,792, while the total
number of ballots, except in Beaver
county. which has not reported, was
1,026,769. The latter figure, Mr. Kahle
contended should be the basis of flgur-
ing the majority vote. Mr.. Kahle also
said the total number of nonpartisan
ballots could be given. He then as
sailed the Attorney Generals rulings
with vigor, but he did not suggest an
alternative method when invited to do
so by Judge Kunkel. He said that Mr..
Brown held that the votes should be
totaled, divided by three and then by
two. He took exception to this method
because, he averred. it was a mistake
to hold that every voter voted for
three.
Alleged "Gucssing"
The Pittsburgh lawyer held that the
Attorney General had guessed" at a
method. when, in his opinion, there
was statutory provision, and that
Mr.. Brown in Interpreting it had gone