The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1922-08-17
ADDS ELEVEN TO
PRIMARY BALLOT
Holds viii of People is Par
amount and Issues Writ
of Mandamus.
CLERK WILL COMPLY
No Appeal Is Expected to Be
Taken and Names viii Be
Added to Primary Ballot.

nearing In the circuit court ordered
| that an alternative writ of mandamus
| be issued to County Clerk Charles L.
Holderness directing him to place the
names of John Kuehnl, Ben Fay, Henry
Gerling, Conrad Shearer, Dow j. Vim
cent, w. S. Hill, Harry Dixon, Stanley
Soldiers, Donald P. Fina, Alonzo T.
Freeman and S. Earl Walden on the
| official primary ballot as candidates for
the Offices for which they have filed
petitions, or show cause in the circuit
| court of Kenosha county at it's next
regular term why he should not obey
the order. AS the circuit court will
| not be in session until October and as
there is lite likelihood that a judge
could be obtained to hear extended
litigation it is believed that the court
fight is at an end.
| District Attorney Frank Symmonds.
after the court had handed down his
| order, declared: "The matter is one
wholly for the county clerk to decide.
/ have appeared in court and have pre-
sented the county's side of the case,
but am not standing in the way Of
these names going on the ballot"
| Sees Possible Mixup.
The district attorney declared that
he saw possible complications which
might follow the nomination of any Of
neys who had interested themselves in
the case said that they did not believe
that the clerk, acting on the action of
the court commissioner, could in any
way be guilty of error.
"Are you willing to take upon your
self the consequences of this decision %
was the question which the district at
torney put to John Kuehnl, who had
represented the petitioners.
II am" was the response, and with
this the district attorney declared that
he would act further only at the re-
! quest of the county clerk.
Practically all Of the candidates for
the various nominations today express
ed satisfaction that a way had been
opened to place all of the names on
the primary ballot. 1t has been the
contention from the first, so far as the
other candidates were concerned, that
the names should go on the ballot and
practically all Of them have signed an
agreement to this effect.
The battle Of the eleven candidates
to have their names placed on the bal
lot was the most interesting thing in
Kenosha today and it drew a big crowd
of politicians to the court house.
Most of the men named in the petit
ton for the writ Of mandamus were
at the hearing and in addition there
was a sprinkling of other candidates
who seemed to be anxious to find out
just who was going to run against them.
Attorney John F. Kuehnl appeared
for the petitioners and he had with
him Wallace ingalls, of Racine, who is
regarded as something of an expert on
the law relating to elections. The dis
trict attorney appeared for the county
clerk and filed motion demanding
the dismissal of the petition on the
ground that it did not state suf-
fcient cause for action.
Petition is Amended.
Just after Court Commissioner Stew
art took the bench, Attorney John F.
Kuehnl presented to the court two
amendments to the petition. One of
them added the names of Conrad Shear
er and D. j. Vincent as parties to the
action and the other read into the rec
ords that the candidates named had
sought further signatures to their
petitions just as soon as they had
been advised that the number of names
ION them were insufficient.
The court himself suggested an am.
plifcation of the petition to show that
formed demand had been made on
the clerk for the acceptance of the
petitions carrying the additional names.
While the court intimated that he
would like to have the matter tried out
on its merits the district attorney in
sisted \on the consideration of his mo-
ton to dismiss the complaint first.
Has Prepared Statement.
In opening his argument of the. ques-
ton he presented to the court pre-
pared statement which was to be taken
as to his attitude in the case. Mr..
Symmonds said in part:
eff I may be permitted, desire to
say a few Introductory remarks before
1 proceed with my arguments. These
remarks are given with the purpose in
view of assisting your honor and coun-
sci on both sides of having a proper
understanding regarding the matter at
were stated in this amended petition
for an alternative writ of mandamus.
No Clear Right for Writ.
The decisions are all to the effect
that upon a petition for either an al
tentative writ or peremptory writ, such
writ cannot issue unless clear right
to the same has been shown in the pc
tition. If the petitioners desire to
again amend their petition, setting up
facts and not mere conclusions, upon
which this court can intelligently
make a decision. have no objections
even at this time; but l do insist for
the reasons mentioned in the demurrer
that the motion to quash must be sus-
tanned by this court under the present
situation. It is apparent to all that
hand. It is not my purpose to stand
here and oppose any remedy which
might legally be given to the petition
Iers herein whereby they may be prop