Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1917-10-20
'SEC'Y WOODS Is
WINNER IN COURT
Dauphin County Court Up
holds His Position in Sole
Nominee Controversy

The Dauphin county court to-day
refused to restrain Secretary OF the
Commonwealth Cyrus IL. Woods from
certifying the names of the four
highest candidates for Judge for Phil
adelphia common pleas No. ., Phila-
delphia orphans court and Schuylkill
county common pleas courts, each of
which will have two judges to elect
next month. The motion was brought
by sitting judges of the courts mem
toned to secure a new Interpretation
of the nonpartisan judicial selection
act. The court stands by its decision
of 1915 in the Drake case from Phila-
delphia.
The opinion was written by Presi-
dent Judge George Kunkel. the 1915
opinion having been written by Judge
s. j. NJ McCarrell. The Secretary of
the Commonwealth was Immediately
notified and the certification of the
four highest candidates for eacn
court was made during the afternoon.
The court says that the plaintiffs
contended that for the word votes
as used in the provision in the phrase
total number of votes cast the
word ballots or electors should be
substituted and that if this be done
! they would be entitled to be the sole
nominees" The court says that II
is manifest it could have been very
readily expressed in the statute by
using the suggested substitutes. The
Legislature, however, used the word
votes and it seems advisedly, for inn
mediately following in the statute
where the second test for determin-
ing a sole nominee is prescribed, the
word ballots is used. 1t is
apparent under our system of cleo
tion and the form of our ballot that
a ballot is one thing and vote is
another" The court adds: ITO adopt
the Interpretation proposed would
practically be to legislate, not ta
interpret.
Might Get Too Many
Moreover" continues the opinion
1--WE think it has been demonstrated
| that if the Interpretation suggested
be adopted it would possibly and very
probably result in a greater number
| of candidates receiving a majority
| of the ballots cast or of the partici-
pating electors than there were Of
| fees or vacancies to fill. The statute
seeks to provide a test for deter
mination of a sole nominee or NOM
| inees If more candidates mel
| the requirements of sole nominees
| than there were offices to NIL, eacf
| one would be the competitor of the
| other, and the object of the statute
would fail of accomplishment
| Nor upon examination of the stat
ute do we find anything in it to sup
port the plaintiffs claim" says the
! court 1T is reasonable to suppose
| that if the Legislature intended tC
make the ballots cast for the office
| and not the votes the test for con-
stituting a sole nominee or nominees
return of the ballots would have
| been required to be made to the Sec
rotary of the Commonwealth, upor
! whom is placed the duty to certify
| the names of the candidates fol
printing on the official ballot, but we
find no such requirement. In view
| of what has been said we are in ne
| better position than we were in the
| case of Drake VS.. Secretary OF the
| Commonwealth, IS Dauph. Rep. sos
| tc conclude that the plaintiffs are
entitled to be the sole nominees fol
the respective offices for which they
were named.