Court Opinion

ID: 9865242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:28:33.924564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:05.042154
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Burke,
dissenting.
I am unable to agree with my associates. Since less than a week remains before election day and petitioners should be promptly advised of the disposition of this matter, any extended exposition herein is not possible.
The power of this court to grant the relief prayed for, in a proper case, I take as settled by the Tool case. It has stood unchallenged by legislative enactment or constitutional amendment for more than thirty years. The question here then is, Have petitioners brought themselves within it? Ho two cases can ever be identical, but following the law of the Tool case we issued the writ and *294made the appointments in 1920 in the Nicholson case, in its salient features almost identical with that now before us. True, no opinion was written therein, hence it is not reported. It is still an adjudication by this court. True, it was not contested, although answers were filed denying the charges. There is no denial here. The question there was, Did the facts alleged bring it within the rule in the Tool case ? The writ was issued and watchers appointed by the court en banc. There was no dissent. That apparently none of the judges, and none of the attorneys therein, doubted that the allegations brought it within the rule, is to me most persuasive. We know nothing of the facts here save as they are charged. Undenied they must be taken for our present purposes as true. They are not only serious, they are appalling, and in their consequences' might be far reaching. The relief asked is only that men be ordered to do their duty and held accountable if they fail, and that persons be appointed to observe and report in that behalf. If anyone intends to violate the law the relief asked would be salutary, if no one so intends no one can be hurt.