Case Name: The State ex rel. Hunt, Appellant, vs. Stafford, Respondent
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1904-01-12
Citations: 120 Wis. 203
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State ex rel. Hunt, Appellant, vs. Stafford, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 120
Pages: 203–222

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Hunt, Appellant, vs. Stafford, Respondent.
December 12, 1903
January 12, 1904.
Elections: Caucuses: Nomination by mass convention: Repeal of statute Toy implication: Constitutional law: Right of elector to have ballot counted..
1. Ch. 341, Laws of 1899, entitled “An act relating to caucuses and amending” secs, lla-lli, Stats. 1898, provided that “caucuses, and meetings of political parties held for the purpose of nom-nating candidates or choosing delegates to assemble in convention to nominate any person for any general public office, to be voted for at any general . . . election . . . and all meetings for nominating candidates or choosing delegates to-conventions to nominate candidates to he voted for at such elections, commonly called caucuses, unless held under the provisions of this act, are hereby declared to be unlawful, and no political party shall have its political ticket placed upon the official ballot or canvassed at such election, unless the nomination of its candidates are made in accordance with the provisions of this act;” and repealed secs, lla-lli and all acts and parts of acts in conflict with its provisions. The first general law regulating caucuses and political meetings, was ch. 312, Laws of 1897, and with some modifications its provisions were-incorporated into the revision of 1898 as secs, llcs-lli, of ch. 5, Stats. 1898, and the title of the chapter was changed from “Of Electors and General Elections” to “Of Caucuses, Electors, and General Elections.” Sec. 30, Stats. 1898, provides that “candidates to he voted for” at general elections “may he nominated ... by a convention or primary meeting, held for the purpose, consisting of an organized assemblage of electors.” Sec. 31, Stats. 1898, provides for certifying the result of “nominations made by a convention;” sec. 40 prescribes the form of official ballots; and sec. 41 provides for the preparation of' the official ballots and the voting and counting of the same, but neither of said sections is referred to in ch. 341, Lays of 1899, and all of them were in existence prior to the adoption of ch. 312, Laws of 1897. The day after ch. 341 was approved two other acts were also approved, the first (ch. 349) relating to-official ballots and amending six sections of tlie Statutes of 1898, other than secs. 30, 31 and 41; and the second (Ch. 351) amending sec. 30 by changing the percentage of voters necessary to entitle a political party to a place on the official ballot,. leaving tire section otherwise unchanged. Ch. 457, Laws of 1901, also> amended secs. 36-38, 40, Stats. 1898, as amended by ch. 349, Laws of 1899, relating to the form of the official ballot. Held., that nominations by mass conventions, provided for by sec. 30, Stats. 1898, were not abolished by the general repealing clause contained in ch. 341, Laws of 1899, and that a person, so nominated, whose name appeared upon the official ballots and who received a majority of all the votes cast for the office for which he was a candidate, was duly elected and entitled to hold the office.
.[2. Whether ch. 341, Laws of 1899, is constitutional, not determined.]
.[3. Marshal, J., is of the opinion that the provision of sec. 30, Stats. 1898, authorizing nominations by mass conventions has been repealed by ch. 341, Laws of 1899, but that the constitutional right of an elector to participate with effect in elections, so far as having his choice of candidates regarded, is so far removed from legislative interference that he cannot rightfully be required, by any legislative act, to use a particular form in a particular way for indicating his choice, and thereafter have that choice disregarded because of its being in favor of one whose name was not rightfully on the ballot form placed, by public agencies, .in his hands as correct.]
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Adams -county: Ohas. M. Webb, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
This is an action of quo warranto brought to determine the right to the office of sheriff of Adams county, under ch. 149, Stats. 1898, commenced January 7, 1903. The cause, being •at issue, was tried by the court, and at the close of the trial the court found as matters of fact, in effect:
(1) That July 10, 1902, the relator was and since has been a resident, citizen, freeholder, qualified elector, and a republican in the county, eligible to hold the office of sheriff therein; (2) that on the day named the relator was nominated for sheriff by the reimblican convention of that county, duly called and composed of delegates duly chosen by caucuses duly called and held for the several towns in the ■county, to be voted for at the general election in November, 1902; (3) that there are seventeen towns in Adams county, but no city or village nor any daily newspaper; (4) that no democratic caucuses were called or Reid in the county for 1902," for the nomination of delegates to sit in a democratic convention to nominate candidates for county offices to be-voted for at the general November election for 1902, and never at any time within the ten years last past had any democratic caucuses been called or held in that county; (5) that pursuant to notice duly published in a weekly newspaper, the democratic party of the county, on August 30, 1902, called a mass convention of that party for the nomination of candidates for the several county offices for the county,, including member of assembly, to be voted for at the general November election for 1902; that such convention was called and notice given by the duly authorized democratic county committee; that at the time and place mentioned in such notice, and pursuant thereto, lawful democratic voters from seven of said towns, in pursuance of such notice, assembled in convention, and the same was duly organized, with a chairman and secretary and tellers and other officers, and by ballot nominated a candidate for each of the several county offices, including member of assembly, appointed a committee to represent the party in the county, and exercised the powers and performed the duties of a convention composed of delegates chosen at caucuses; that the defendant was unanimously nominated by such mass convention for the office of sheriff; that, such convention was composed of twenty-eight democrats . from the seven towns represented, and one not located in any particular town; (6) that at the close of such convention a certificate in writing, duly signed, executed and verified by the presiding officer and secretary thereof, as required by sec. 31, Stats. 1898, and other provisions of law, was duly made and filed with the county clerk October 14, 1902; (7) that the republican county convention duly caused to be made and filed its certificate of nominations for county officers with the county clerk in the form and manner and time required by law; (8) that neither the prohibition party nor any other party, except the republican party, called or held any caucuses in the county for 1902 for the election of delegates to a county convention for the nomination of candidates for the several county offices to he voted for at the general election in 1902; that the prohibition party therein did, pursuant to notice, nominate a full ticket for county officers, including member of assembly, to be voted for at that election, and filed its certificate of nominations as required by law; (9) that pursuant to snch three certificates the county clerk caused to be made and published, as required by law, a notice of election and information to voters, having thereon for •sheriff in the proper columns the names of the relator and the defendant and the prohibition candidate, together with ■a full list in the proper columns of all candidates of the three parties for county offices, including member of assembly; (10) that at the time and in the manner and form required 'by law the county clerk duly prepared the official ballot for the general November, 1902, election, having thereon in due form and in the proper columns the names of the candidates of the several paihies so certified to him, including the several candidates for sheriff, and duly caused to be printed and distributed the sample ballots provided by law, and caused to be printed and furnished for use at said election said official ballots at the time and in the manner and form required by law; that in said notice of election and information to voters, sample ballots, and upon all of said official ballots for the office of sheriff, in the democratic column, was the name of the defendant, in the republican column the name of the relator, and in the prohibition column the name of its candidate; (11) that the relator and the public generally read such notices and knew all the facts stated for some two months prior to the election in November, 1902, and took part in the •campaign, without making any claim that the nomination of the democratic or the prohibition party was irregular or unlawful, and took no action or proceeding in court or other wise, and made no protest to the county clerk or otherwise against placing the defendant’s name in the democratic column upon the official ballot, nor against placing the name of the prohibition candidate thereon; (12). that at said election the relator received YlY votes for the office'of sheriff, and the defendant received 835 votes for that office, and the prohibition candidate received thirty-one votes for that office — that is to say, the defendant had a majority of eighty-seven votes and a plurality of 118 votes; “that of said 835 votes so received (by defendant) for said office of sheriff less than YlY votes and less than a plurality was by writing in on the ticket by the voter the name of said” defendant; (13) that after such election, and at the time and in the manner required by law, such votes for sheriff were duly counted and canvassed as required by law without any protest from the relator or any one, and a certificate of election in due form as required by law was duly issued to the defendant for the office of sheriff, and he duly took the oath of office and gave the requisite bond and qualified as such sheriff, as required by law, and entered upon the discharge of his duties as such sheriff, and has since continued to do so; (15) that the votes cast for sheriff for the three candidates named were only thirty-nine less than all the votes cast for the four several candidates for governor at that election; (14) and only 368 less than the whole number of votes cast in that county for president in 1900; (16) that for many years the democratic vote in that county had been very small, as indicated, not being more than about one-fifth of the voters; (1Y) that the democratic mass convention so held was pursuant to the •advice of the republican and democratic state central committees, to the effect that the right to hold such mass conventions had not been taken away by ch. 341, Laws of 1899; .(19 and 20) that the defendant was and is a resident, citizen, freeholder, and voter in the county and was and is qualified .to hold the office of sheriff, and that he was so nominated ■without fraud aud iu the belief that the same was legal and according to law; (21) that the secretary of the democratic convention of August 30, 1902, mentioned, was the then, county clerk of the county.
And as conclusions of law, the court found, in effect, that the 835 votes cast for the defendant for the office of sheriff' were legally and lawfully cast, and legally and lawfully canvassed and counted for him for that office; that the defendant was lawfully chosen at the Eovember election of 1902 for the office of sheriff for that county for the term beginning the* first Monday of January, 1903, by plurality vote of 118; that the defendant was and is the duly elected, qualified, and acting sheriff of the county, and is duly authorized to perform the duties and enjoy the privileges of said office for the-regular term beginning the,first Monday in January, 1903;; that the defendant is not guilty of usurping or intruding into or unlawfully holding or exercising said office of sheriff, and' is entitled to judgment dismissing said complaint upon the-merits and for his costs of this action — and ordered judgment accordingly.
From the judgment so entei*ed upon such findings, the relator appeals.
For the appellant there was a brief by Lamoreux & Park- and William Sweet, attorneys, and Allan T. Pray, of counsel,, and oral argument by Mr. B. B. Parle and Mr. Sweet.
They-contended, inter alia, that ch. 341, Laws of 1899, is constitutional. 2 Brice, Am. Com. Ml; In re Duffy, 4 Brewster, 531; State ex rel. Doerflinger v. Hilmantel, 21 Wis. 566; 10" Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d ed.) 576, 586, 587;-Cooley, Const. Lim. (3d ed.) *602; State ex rel. Bunge v. Anderson, 100 Wis. 523; 32 Am. Law Reg. (E. S.) 104; Todd v. Election Corners, 104 Mich. 474, 480, 64 E. W. 496; Bcm-som v. Blade, 54 E. J. Law, 446-451; Talcott v. Philbrick, 59 Conn. 472, 20 Atl. 436, 439; People ex rel. Peeny v. Board of Canvassers, 156 E. T. 47-49; People ex. rel. Wells; v. Common Council, 46 3ST. Y. Supp. 701; Leonard v. Comm, ex rel. Atfy Gen. 112 Pa. St. 607, 622; State ex rel. Atfy Gen. v. Dillon, 32 Pía. 545'; Sanner v. Patton, 155 Ill. 553, 562; Bowers v. Smith, 111 Mo. 45, 33 Am. St. Rep. 491; De Walt v. Bartley, 146 Pa. St. 529, 28 Am. St. Rep. 814; State ex rel. Plimmer v. Poston, 58 Ohio St. 620; Common Council of Detroit v. Push, 82 Midi. 532 — 537, 46 PL W. 951; State ex rel. Cothren v. Lean, 9 Wis. 279; State ex rel. Wood v. Baker, 38 Wis. 71; Dells v. Kennedy, 49 Wis. 555; State ex rel. Schuetz v. Luy, 103 Wis. 524; State ex rel. Blodgett v. Bagan, 115 Wis. 417. Cli. 341, Laws of 1899 is mandatory. 10 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d ed.) 722; State ex rel. Brooks v. Fransham, 19 Mont. 273, 290; Jones v. State ex rel. Wilson, 153 Ind. 440, 55 PT. E. 229, 233 ; Hornung v. Board of Canvassers, 119 Midi. 51, 77 PT. W. 446; Stack-pole v. Hallaban, 16 Mont. 40, 40 Pae. 80; Schuler v. Hogan, 168 Ill. 369, 48 PT. E. 195; Blackmer v. Hildreth, 181 Mass. 29, 63 PT. E. 14; In re Madden, 148 PT. Y. 136, 42 PT. E. 534; People ex rel. Hirsch v. Wood, 148 PI. Y. 142, 42 PT. E. 536; Mauston v. McIntosh, 58 Minn. 525, 60 PL W. 672; Weddel v. Durbin, 26 Wis. 390; Halstead v. Bader, 27 W. Ya. 808; State ex rel. Doerflinger v. Hilmantel, 21 Wis. 566; People ex rel. Nichols v. Board of Canvassers, 129 PT. Y. 395; West v. Boss, 53 Mo. 350; McCrary, Elections, §§ 700, 723 and 724; German Am. Bank v. Devlin, 96 Wis. 155, 157.
Eor tRe respondent there was a brief by Goggins & Brazeau and Corrigan & Johnson, and oral argument by B. B. Gog-gins and W. D. Corrigan.
They contended, inter alia, that that part of sec. 1, eh. 341, Laws of 1899, material to the case, has no application to nominations made at a county convention hold for the purpose of nominating candidates for county office. State ex rel. Brooks v. Fransham, 19 Mont. 273, 290; Hankey v. Bowman, 82 Minn. 328, 84 PI. W. 1002, 1004; State ex rel. Crawford v. Norris, 37 PTeb. 299, 55 N. W. 1086; State ex rel. Bennett v. Barber, é Wyo. 56, 96, 32 Pac. 14; Owens v. Slate ex rel. Jennett, 64 Tex. 500, 509; Brown v. Williams, 34 Neb. 376, 51 N. W. 851; Bowers v. Smith, 111 Mo. 45, 57; State ex rel. Att’y Gen. v. Dillon, 32 Fla. 545, 547, 14 South. 383; People ex rel. Feeny v. Board of Canvassers, 156 N. Y. 36, 52; Bragdon v. Navarre, 102 Mich. 259, 60 N. W. 277; 'Miller v. Pennoyer, 23 Oreg. 364, 31 Pac. 830. If that part of ch. 341, Laws of 1899, material to the issues, should receive the construction contended for by appellant it would be unconstitutional., Slachpole v. Hallaban, 16 Mont. 40, 40 Pac. 80; People ex rel. Hirsh v. Wood, 148 N. Y. 142; In re Madden, 148 N. Y. 136; State ex rel. Wood v. Balcer, 38 Wis. 71, 86, 87; State ex rel. Bunge v. Anderson, 100 Wis. 523, 530; State ex rel. Briesen v. Barden, 77 Wis. 601; Dells v. Kennedy, 49 Wis. 555; Bowers v. Smith, 111 Mo. 45, 20 S. W. 101; Moyer v. Van de Vanter, 12 .Wash. 377, 29 L. E. A. 670; State ex rel. Brooks v. Fransham, 19 Mont. 273, 289, 290; Spier v. Baker, 120 Oal. 370, 375, 52 Pac. 659; State ex rel. Van Byn v. Horan, 85 Wis. 94; State ex rel. Att’y Gen. v. Cunningham, 81 Wis. 440, 476; Britton v. Board of Comm’rs, 129 Cal. 337, 342-344; Murphy v. Curry, 137 Oal. 479; De Walt v. Bartley, 146 Pa. St. 529, 540; Hornung v. Board of Canvassers, 119 Mich. 51, 77 N. W. 446; Schuler v. Hogan, 168 Ill. 369, 48 N. E. 195; Baker v. Scott, 4 Idaho, 596, 43 Pac. 76-78; Miller v. Pennoyer, 23 Oreg. 364, 31 Pac. 830, 831; State ex rel. Crawford v. Norris, 37 Neb. 299, 55 N. W. 1086; State ex rel. La Valle v. Sauk Co. 62 Wis. 376; Milwaukee Co. v. Isenring, 109 Wis. 9, 28; State ex rel. Att’y Gen. v. Boyd, 19 Nev. 43, 5 Pac. 735; Wagner v. Milwaukee Co. 112 Wis. 601 y Gilhert-Arnold L. Co. v. Superior, 91 Wis. 353, 357; State ex rel. Chase v. Bogers, 10 Nev. 250; Smith v. Sherry, 54 Wis. 114; Vinsant v. Knox, 27 Ark. 266; Powell v. Jackson, 51 Mich. 129. Where an opportunity is given to the candidate to have the ballot properly made up before election, and lie is in possession of all tlie facts and chooses to wait until after election and when defeated at the polls seeks to avoid the choice of the. voters as expressed at the election, his action comes too late and he is estopped and cannot be' heard to complain. State ex rel. Crawford v. Norris, 37 Neb. 299, 312, 55 N. W. 1086; State ex rel. Broolcs v. Fransham, 19 Mont. 273, 288, 289; Beg. ex rel. Harris v. Bradburn, 6 Ont. Pr. Rep. 308. See also many cases cited in note in Bowers v. Smith, 16 L. R. A. 755; State ex rel. Bennett v. Barber, 4 Wyo. 56, 97, 32 Pac. 14; Tutt v. Hawlcins, 53 Neb. 367, 73 N. W. 692; Allen v. Glynn, 17 Colo. 338, 15 L. R. A. 743; McOrary, Elections, p. 512, § 705; State ex rel. Wood v. Balcer, 38 Wis. 71; Balcer v. Scott, 4 Idaho, 596, 43 Pac. 76-78; Bowers v. Smith, 111 Mo. 45, 56; High, Extra. Leg. Rem. § 646 and notes.

Opinion:
Cassoday, O. J.
It is urged on the part of the relator that the democratic mass convention which nominated the defendant as its candidate for sheriff was an unlawful gathering, held in violation of ch. 341, Laws of 1899; that, being unlawful, there was, in fact and law, no nomination made by that convention, and consequently that the ballots cast for the defendant were improperly canvassed and should be disregarded. Omitting what is not here applicable, the particular provisions of the act relied upon declare that:
"Caucuses and meetings of political parties held for the purpose of nominating candidates or choosing delegates to assemble in convention to nominate any person for any public office, to be voted for at any general . . . election . . . and all meetings for nominating candidates or choosing delegates to conventions to nominate candidates to be voted for at such elections, commonly called caucuses unless held under the provisions of this act, are hereby declared to be unlawful, and no political party shall have its political ticket placed upon the official ballot, or canvassed at such election, unless tbe nomination of its candidates are made in accordance with the provisions of this act."
It is claimed that these provisions are mandatory and constitutional, and that they were improperly disregarded by the trial court.
Counsel for the defendant make two answers to such contention. One is to the effect that if the act must be construed as claimed on the part of the relator, then that it is repugnant to the constitutional right secured to every "qualified elector"' to vote "by ballot" for sheriff and other county officers, and by implication prohibits the legislature from, "excluding from the right of suffrage" any "qualified elector" except for crime. Secs. 1, 3, 6, art. III, Const., and see. 4, art. VI,, Const. The other answer is to the effect that the whole act, when fairly considered, only relates to the election of delegates and caucus conventions, and has no reference to mass, conventions, such as nominated the defendant, and that this is especially so when considered in the light of other legislation on the subject.
Such legislation seems to have commenced in 1893. In that year the legislature passed an act entitled "An act to regulate caucuses and conventions," applicable, however, only to Milwaukee county. Ch. 249, Laws of 1893. A few days afterwards the same legislature passed an act entitled "An act.to consolidate and revise the statutes of'the state, relating to general elections, the conduct, canvass and returns of the same, and to secure the secrecy and purity of the ballot, and for other purposes." Most of that act is still in force, as will lie found by reference to secs. 12-94/, Stats. 1898. Ch. 288, Laws of 1893. Two years afterwards another act was passed entitled "An act to regulate the nomination of candidates," applicable, however, only to Milwaukee county. Two years-afterwards another act was passed entitled "An act to regulate the nomination of candidates," and relating to "caucuses and meetings of political parties . . . commonly called. caucuses." Cli. 312, Laws of 1897. That appears to have been the first act regulating such caucuses and political meetings outside of Milwaukee county. That act was continued, in a modified form, as secs. 11a to Hi of chapter 5 of the Statutes of 1898. The title of that chapter had previously been, "Of Electors and General Elections," but by reason of the new act relating to such "caucuses" the title was changed in the revision of 1898 so as to read, "Of Caucuses, Electors and General Elections."
Such were the general circumstances under which ch. 341, Laws of 1899, was enacted. The significance of that act is expressed in its title, which is, "An act relating to caucuses, and amending sec. 11a to sec. lli, inclusive, of chapter 5 of the Statutes of 1898." As appears from the above quotation from the first section of the act, it deals with "caucuses and meetings of political parties . . . commonly called caucuses." It defines caucuses, and prescribes the manner of calling -them and the length of time they shall be held open. Sec. 1. Every political party desiring to nominate candidates as therein provided is required to do so in the manner therein prescribed. Sec. 2, Id. It requires the respective committees to determine when and where the conventions of the political party it represents shall be held, and also the day upon which the caucuses of such political party shall be held. 'Sec. 2, Id. Every section of the act pertains to caucuses. At all caucuses held under the provisions of the act all votes are to be by ballot. The duties of caucus officers and the canvass of votes cast at caucuses, and the manner of certifying the result, are prescribed, and punishment for bribery and failures of duty is provided. The act only provides for the amendment of the provisions of the statutes relating to caucuses. Ch. 341, Laws of 1899, made no reference to sec. 30, Stats, of 1898, which provides that "candidates to be voted for" at general elections "may be nominated . . . by a convention or primary meeting held for the purpose, consisting of an organized assemblage of electors," and so it makes no reference to sec. 31, Stats. 1898, wbicb provides for certifying tbe result of "nominations made by a convention;" nor does it make any reference to sec. 40, Stats. 1898, prescribing tbe form of official ballots, nor sec. 41, providing for tbe preparation, of official ballots and tbe voting and tbe counting of tbe same. True, tbe twelfth section of cb. 341, Laws of 1899, expressly repeals tbe nine sections of tbe Statutes of 1898 relating to caucuses, thereby amended, and also repeals all acts and parts of acts in conflict with tbe provisions of that act; and it is claimed that secs. 30 and 31, and 40 and 41, Stats, of 1898, mentioned, are to a certain extent in conflict with tbe first section of that chapter, wherein it declares that "no political party shall have its political ticket placed upon tbe official ballot or canvassed at such election, unless tbe nomination of its candidates are made in accordance with tbe provisions of this [that] act." If the act is confined to "all meetings for nominating candidates or choosing delegates to conventions to nominate candidates to be voted for at such elections, commonly called caucuses " then there is no such conflict. On tbe other band, if it is to have the broad and sweeping construction contended for by counsel for tbe relator, and does include such mass conventions as nominated tbe defendant, then there is much force in tbe contention.
But there are other reasons why tbe act should not have such broad construction. Tbe next day aftér tbe governor approved ch. 341, Laws of 1899,= be approved another act, entitled "An act relating to tbe form of official ballots for general elections, and amending secs. 37, 38, 40, 51, 52 and subds. 1 and 3, sec. 57, Stats. 1898," being cb. 349, Laws of 1899. If secs. 30, 31, and 41, Sta'ts. 1898, mentioned, are to be regarded as amended by implication, as claimed by counsel for tbe relator, then it is singular that no reference was therein made to either of those sections in a chapter ex- préssly amending six otlier sections of tbe Statutes of 1898 upon tbe same subject. If tbe contention of counsel for tbe relator is correct, it is still more singular that on the next day after tbe governor approved cb. 341, Laws of 1899, be approved another act [cb. 351, sec. 2], wherein sec. 30, Stats. 1898, was expressly amended by changing tbe word "two" in tbe latter part of tbe section to "one" leaving tbe section to continue to declare, as before, that:
"Candidates to be voted for at tbe elections to which this title applies may be nominated. . . . by a convention or primary meeting held for tbe purpose, consisting of an organized assemblage of electors."-
Two years after that enactment, tbe legislature passed an act entitled "An act to amend sections 36, 37, 38 and 40 of tbe Statutes of 1898, as amended by chapter 349 of tbe Laws of 1899, relating to tbe form of official ballots for general elections," being cb. 457, Laws of 1901; and yet no reference was made therein to secs. 30, 31, or 41 of tbe Statutes of 1898. Besides, in construing a statute, regard is to be bad to its purpose and object.
One of tbe objects of such caucus statutes manifestly was to secure to every political party having one per cent, of tbe entire vote cast in tbe county a place on tbe official ballot for tbe election of county officers'. Tbe statute goes further, and "in case of a division in any political party, and a claim by two or more factions thereof to tbe same party name," maltes provision for securing a place on tbe official ballot by each of such factions. Sec. 35, Stats. 1898. In tbe case at bar there was no such division of the democratic party in Adams county. Nor was there any controversy as to tbe official ballot. That ballot was prepared by tbe county clerk in tbe form and in tbe manner prescribed by law. The name of tbe relator was upon it as tbe republican candidate for sheriff, and tbe name of tbe defendant was upon it as tbe democratic candidate for sheriff. All parties and all electors, appar ently, were satisfied witb tbe official ballot as tbus prepared and presented for use at tbe election. Tbe defendant received not only a plurality of 118 votes, but also a majority of eigbty-seven of all votes cast for sheriff. Upon tbe facts found, we must bold that mass conventions provided for by sec. 30, Stats. 1898, were not abolished by cb. 341, Laws of 1899, and that tbe name of tbe defendant was properly on tbe official ballot as tbe candidate of tbe democratic party for tbe office of sheriff, and be was duly elected and qualified as such sheriff.
This makes it unnecessary to consider whether cb. 341, Laws of 1899, -would have been constitutional if construed as contended for on tbe part of the relator.
By the Gourt. — Tbe judgment of tbe circuit court is affirmed.