The case was heard upon the petition and the various certificates of nominations for the of fice of presidential electors filed in the office of respondent. From the record outside of the petition it appeared that on the 25th day of September-several days before the chairman and secretary of the convention of the People's party filed their certificate of the nominations made by that party at its said convention-a certificate of nomination, signed by 100 electors representing themselves as members of the People's party, was filed, making original nominations of candidates for electors to represent the principles of the People's party, naming as the nominees thereof the same persons who were nominated at the state convention of that party, viz. Matthews, Randall, and Van Meter.

name of Van Meter; the names of three Prohi- ! three other candidates for the same office by bition candidates; and lastly the names of John | attending and participating in the primaries of A. Martin and Patrick J. Quealy, with the the Republican party. This last-mentioned word "Democrat" following each of their allegation is general in character. It is neither names. The petition discloses: That at the stated when they so attended and participated, regular Democratic state convention George H. or in what the participation consisted, nor are Cross, John A. Martin, and Patrick J. Quealy the particular individuals referred to indicated. were nominated for presidental electors, and at The petition avers that the certificate of the rethe regular state convention of the People's spondent is illegal and wrong in two respects; party Francis M. Matthews, Charles H Ran- First, in failing to certify the name of Dandall, and Daniel L. Van Meter were nominated iel L. Van Meter in the same group and in confor such office. All of these nominations were junction with the names of Martin and Quesly, duly certified to the respondent by the respect- the other Democratic candidates; and second, ive chairmen and secretaries of such conventions. in including the names of Jordan and Sims That within the time allowed by the statute, in the group of the candidates for electors of Cross, one of the Democratic nominees, and the People's party. The prayer of the petition Randall and Matthews, two of the nominees is that a writ of mandamus issue directing the of the People's party, duly declined. That in respondent to rescind his certificate, and to pursuance of the authority expressly conferred issue therefor new ones, placing the name of upon it by the convention making the original Van Meter in the group of Democratic candinominations the state committee of the Demo- dates, and omitting the names of Jordan and cratic party filled the vacancy caused by the Sims from the group of the candidates of the declination of Cross by the nomination of Dan- People's party, or requiring him to so modify iel L. Van Meter. That neither any conven- | his certificates already sent out that the same tion or committee of the People's party at result may be accomplished. tempted to fill the vacancy occasioned by the declinations of Matthews and Randall, nor took any action concerning the matter, and that the People's party convention had not empowered its state committee to fill such or any vacancies. It further appears that on the 8th day of October one John W. Patterson, who had been appointed by the said convention of the People's party as the chairman of the state committee of that party, delivered to the respondent a certificate of nomination purporting to nominate for the office of presidential electors to fill the vacancy in the list of People's party candidates caused by the declination of Matthews and Randall, respectively, Patrick J. M. Jordan and John Sims; it appearing from the record that in the body of such certificate it was recited that "the undersigned and the said Patrick J. M. Jordan and the said John Sims so nominated to fill such vacancies represent the People's party;" and that the same was verified by said John W. Patterson, who made oath that the statements contained in the certificate were true, and described himself in his affidavit as the chairman of the state committee of the People's party. The said certi ficate was signed by 100 electors, including said Patterson. The relator in his petition charges that this certificate of nomination was void. The allegations to support such charge, summarized, are to the effect that the nominations mentioned therein were not made by the People's party; that the laws of this state contemplate and expressly require that vacancies occurring in the ticket of any political party nominated in regular convention shall be filled only by the convention itself or by the party committee duly authorized; that the certificate was not filed within the time required for original nominations; and that no number of electors can supplant or supersede the action of an organized political party; and the electors whose names are subscribed to the certificate in question were not authorized to represent the People's party, or act in its behalf. It was also averred that a large number of the persons whose names were signed to the certificate had joined in nominating at least

The duty of the secretary of state with respect to the certification of nominations filed in his office is defined by the provisions of § 93 of chap. 80 of the laws of 1890, as follows: "Not less than twenty-five nor more than thirty days before an election to fill any public office, the secretary of Wyoming shall certify to the county clerk of each county within which any of the electors may by law vote for candidates for such office, the names and description of each person nominated for such office as specified in the certificate of nomination with the said secretary." If the respondent has com plied with this duty, then the writ prayed for should not be allowed. It is contended that he has failed to perform the duty in the two particulars already mentioned. Upon the hearing, although it was not conceded by counsel for relator that the names of Jordan and Sims were entitled to be certified in any manner whatever, the chief contention seemed to be narrowed to the proposition that they were not properly certified as People's candidates, and in one group with Van Meter; but that, if certified at all. some words, such as "Independent" or "Electors," should be used to indicate that they were nominated by certificate of electors. The argument respecting the grouping of the Democratic nominees, and including therein the name of Van Meter in the certifi

cate of the secretary, was based upon the re- nomination are entitled to be arranged upon quirements concerning the official ballot. Sec- the official ballot in a separate group, and tion 104 of chapter 80 of the Laws of 1890 that the officer charged with the duty of thus provides that "all ballots prepared under the arranging them can have no other source of provisions of this act shall be white in color official information than the_contents of the and of a good quality of paper, and the names certificate of the secretary. It would, thereshall be printed thereon in black ink. Every fore, seem reasonably clear that in the perballot shall contain the name of every candi- formance of the duty devolving upon the secdate whose nomination for any office specified retary he should so certify the names of such in the ballot has been certified or filed accord candidates and their description as will coning to the provisions of this act and no other vey to the county clerk all requisite knowlname. The names of candidates for each edge. The relator and his counsel assumed office shall be arranged under the designation that this could only be accomplished by the of the office in alphabetical order according to proper grouping of the candidates in the cersurnames, except that the names of electors of tificate of the secretary. We are not, however, President and Vice President of the United prepared to assent to that view. If the informaStates presented in one certificate of nomina- tion sufficient for the appropriate performance tion, shall be arranged in a separate group, of the duty of the county clerk can be given in every ballot shall also contain the name of the other ways than by grouping,-and we appreparty or principle which the candidates reprehend that may be practicable,—then it would be sent as contained in the certificate of nomination. erroneous to say in the absence of an express At the end of the list of candidates for each office requirement to that effect, that the secretary is shall be left a blank space large enough to con-under official obligation to place the candidates tain as many written names of candidates as are necessary to fill such office. And on the ballot may be printed such words as will aid the voter to vote, as 'Vote for one,' 'Vote for two, 'Vote for three;' 'Yes,' 'No,' and the like." It is not required of the secretary that he prepare the official ballots. With this he has nothing whatever to do. That duty resides with the county clerk of each county. Under our system of voting the elector is required to place a cross opposite the name of each candidate for whom he desires to vote; and, although the names of candidates for electors presented in one certificate of nomination are required to be arranged upon the ballot in a separate group, one cross will not suffice to vote for the three, or for the group thus arranged, but the voter, if desiring to vote for three, as he may do, is required to place a cross opposite the name of each one of the three. At the time of orally announcing the conclusion of the court it was stated that the secretary was not required to group the candidates for electors at all, and that, if he did so, his arrangement into groups was not binding or conclusive upon the officers charged with the duty of preparing the ballots. This statement was made in view of the rather meager provisions affecting the duty of the secretary, and the nature of a mandamus proceeding; and it seemed that, unless it was clearly the duty of the respondent to group the candidates, he ought not to be directed by a writ of mandamus to do so. The statute does not expressly require that he shall certify such candidates in the manner in which they are required to be arranged upon the ballot; and, so far as the name of Van Meter is concerned. that is the extent of the prayer of relator. But we are somewhat apprehensive that a misunderstand ing of the views of the court may arise from what was said when its conclusion was announced, without some further explanation. While it is true, as above suggested, that there is no express provision requiring the secretary to do more than certify the names and descrip tion of each person nominated, as specified in the certificate of nomination, it is likewise true that those candidates for presi dential electors presented in one certificate of

in groups, as they are entitled to appear on the ballot, and by this method alone to certify the necessary information to the county clerks. The alternative writ commanded the respondent to thus group the names, or show cause to the contrary. In case the writ should be made peremptory, the same command would continue, notwithstanding the duty to afford proper information could as well, and perhaps even better, without trespassing upon the discretion of the county clerks, be capable of performance in another manner. The soundness of the contention of the relator, moreover, depends upon the correctness of his theory that the name of Van Meter should appear upon the ballot in a group to be comprised of his name and the other two Democratic nominees. If that is not a right to which he is entitled, then assuredly the respondent is not required to certify his name in such a group in any event, and we will not rest our conclusion entirely upon the fact that the respondent might employ different methods, but will inquire into the proposition thus insisted upon by the relator. It is manifest that the issues in this case do not directly involve the preparation of the ballot; but that matter bears a close relation to the obligations imposed upon the secretary, and as affecting his duties it may very properly be considered.

It was decided by this court in the case of Sawin v. Pease (Wyo.) 42 Pac. 750, that as to any office other than elector for President and Vice President a candidate nominated by more than one party for the same office was not entitled to have his name appear upon the ballot more than once, and we can see no rea son for departing from that rule. The opinion in that case out of abundant caution expressly stated that whether or not a dif ferent rule would apply as to presidential electors was not decided. The reason for the principle adopted in Sawin v. Pease arose out of our system of ballots and voting; the requirement that a cross must be placed opposite the name of each candidate for whom the elector desired to vote; the impossibility of voting a straight ticket, or for any number or group of candidates representing the same party or principle, by a single mark or cross; and as a consequence,

the probability of mistake and confusion The next question submitted involves the should the name of any candidate be printed status of the nominations of Jordan and Sims. in more than one place as a candidate for the One ground of objection is that a large numsame office. Are those reasons, and is the rule ber of the persons purporting to sign the certifideduced therefrom in the case of other offices, cate of nomination had joined in nominating inapplicable to the office of presidential elector? at least three other persons for the same office The one difference existing in the law between by attending and participating in the primaries that and other offices is that the names of those of the Republican party. Independent of the candidates for presidential electors presented very general character of the allegation, we in one certificate of nomination shall be ar- are of the opinion that the provision of the ranged upon the ballot in a separate group. statute (Laws 1890, chap. 80, 89), attempted In view of the further provision of law affect to be thus invoked is prohibitory only of the ing alike all candidates upon the ballot that same person joining in a certificate of nominaone cross votes for but one individual, and tion by electors of more than one person for that the name of the presidential nominee no- the same office. The last part of the clause where appears on the ballot, we are unable to containing the provision referred to provides distinguish the case of such candidates from that that, if any person does so join, his name of candidates for any other office in the respect shall not be counted upon either certificate, and under consideration; otherwise any person or the context clearly indicates that it was only group of persons nominated by more than one intended to forbid one from joining in more party would be entitled to as many places upon than one elector's certificate making a nominathe ballot corresponding with the number of par- tion for the same office. Whether anyone shall ties nominating them, or certificates lawfully have so joined can then easily be ascertained filed of such nominations. The same group of by the officer with whom the certificates are rethree persons might be presented by several par- quired to be filed. It is, however, contended ties, and the entire group be given as many places that 100 electors cannot supplant a regularly upon the official ballot. Such a result could organized political party, and are not authonly cause much confusion, and throw doubt orized to place in nomination any candidate as upon the correctness of the returns of the votes representative of such a party. The position cast. We are clearly of the opinion that the taken is that a party nomination is permitted law does not contemplate the printing of the to be made only by a party convention. Coun name of one person as candidate for elector of sel for relator stated upon the hearing that President and Vice President in more than one they were until that time unaware that the place upon the ballot. Daniel L. Van Meter People's nominees had first or at any time been was regularly nominated by the People's party, nominated by an electors' certificate; and it and the certificate thereof duly filed. He has was conceded by such counsel that, if a vanot declined that nomination. There is cer- cancy occurs in the nominations made by such tainly no authority to remove his name from an electors' certificate, it might be filled in the the People's party group. His nomination by same manner. The papers upon which the that party was made long prior to its adoption cause was submitted conclusively show that by the Democratic party. His name being 100 electors had nominated by certificate in entitled to but one place upon the ballot, and due form said Randall, Matthews, and Van no one possessing the right to ignore his first Meter as candidates of the People's party or nomination in the preparation of the ballot, it representing the principles of that party, and necessarily follows that his name is not im- that filing preceded the certificate of the offi peratively required to be also printed in the cers of the convention. The resignation of same group, and in conjunction with the other Randall and Matthews declined by clear and Democratic candidates. He is described as express language only the nominations conDemocratic as well as People's, and this de- ferred by the state convention of the People's scription indicates to the voter that he has party; but included in their respective statebeen nominated as representing both parties. ments of declination was a direction to the An arrangement of the ballot in which all ap- secretary of state to omit their names from the propriate groups could be maintained, and yet official ballot sufficiently indicating an intenthe name of Van Meter immediately precede tion upon their part to entirely withdraw as or follow the names of the other Democratic candidates for presidential electors. It is at candidates, thus bringing the three into closer least certain that the respondent has not certiproximity, would certainly not violate the let-fied their names, and that no person or party ter or the spirit of the law; but that matter is insisting that his action in that regard was has been left to the discretion of the county erroneous. A vacancy, then, occurred in the clerks, which, unless the statute is departed list of candidates for the office in question, from, is not subject to the control of the courts. presented by the said certificate of electors. These views find support in State, Sturderant, That vacancy at least was filled by the certifiv. Allen (Neb.) 62 N. W. 35, and Miller v. cate which is now attacked, naming Jordan Pennoyer, 23 Or. 364. Had someone, not al- and Sims. It is not necessary therefore, for ready a candidate of another party, been nom- this court to decide whether or not a vacancy inated to fill the vacancy caused by the declina in nominations made by a regular convention tion of George H. Cross, the name of such of a political party can be filled by an electors' nominee would be entitled to a place in the certificate, even though, as in the case at bar, same group with the original associates of such political party has not again acted in the Cross. A reasonable construction of the statu-matter by convention, and the convention tory provision would clearly require the name making the original nominations, has not emof one thus substituted to be given the same place powered any committee to fill vacancies. Inupon the ballot that the name of the candidate deed, the contention seemed to have narrowed who had declined would have been entitled to. I to an attack upon the action of the respondent

in grouping the names of Jordan and Sims with that of Van Meter, and using in connection with their names the party name "Peo ple's," without any qualifying words to indicate that they were not presented by a party convention. So far as concerns the objection to their being grouped with Van Meter, what has already been said is sufficient, bearing in mind that the latter-named person was originally nominated by the certificate of electors conjointly with Randall and Matthews, for whom Jordan and Sims were afterwards substituted.

but has come to our notice. While according to each of those courts our entire respect, if the conclusions arrived at in the cases cited are not at all depending upon the character of their ballot, we would hesitate to follow them in their application to a statute such as that in force in this state. We are inclined, however, to the opinion that there is a well-defined distinction between those cases and the one at bar. In this state, any convention or primary meeting held for the purpose of making nominations to public office, and also a specified number of electors, may nominate candidates It is, however, very seriously insisted on be- for public office to be filled by election. Laws half of the relator that the respondent is not 1890, chap. 80, 84. A convention or primary authorized to certify the designation of "Peo meeting is defined as "an organized assemblage ple's" in connection with the names of these of electors or delegates representing a political substituted candidates, but that he should use party." § 85. Nominations made by a consome other word of description, or add to that vention or primary meeting are required to be so used, which would clearly indicate that they certified in writing containing the name, resiwere nominated by certificate of electors; and dence, and business of the person nominated, in support of that view we are referred to the and in not more than five words, the party or case of Philips v. Curtis Idaho) 38 Pac. 405, principle which such convention or primary which gives countenance to that proposition. meeting represents. It is required to be signed That case, however, is founded upon a statute by the presiding officer and secretary of the which, although quite similar in some respects convention or primary meeting, and verified to our own, and particularly so concerning by them in a certain manner. $ 86. Candithe making of nominations, is radically differ- dates for office may be nominated otherwise ent in others, which must have considerable than by convention or primary meeting, as bearing upon the question. In that state the follows: A certificate containing the name of method of preparing the ballot follows that of a candidate for the office to be filled with most of the states using the Australian system. such information as is required to be given Their statute expressly requires that "the in certificates of nominations by convention width of the ticket shall be divided into as shall be signed by electors, etc. When the many equal parts by lines the whole length of office is to be filled by the electors of the the ticket, as there are political prin entire state, the certificate must be signed ciples or parties represented by the candidates by not less than 100 electors. Such cereach of said parties or divisions to have a tificates may be filed in the same manner, heading or caption designating the political and with the same effect, as a certificate of principle or party represented by the several nomination made by a party convention. $88. candidates.' The ballot in that state therefore Provision is made for declining a nomination, is arranged in separate columns, the candidates at least twenty-five days before election (§ 95); of each party being contained in one column and, in case of vacancy occurring for any reawith the name of the party or principle at the son, the same may be filled in the manner rehead. In the case cited we are led to infer quired for original nominations. § 96. In from the opinion that the People's party, al-case the nomination thus vacated has been though holding a convention, and making cer- made by a party convention, which has deletain nominations, had failed to mention any gated to a committee the power to fill vacanone as a candidate for state senator; and Philcies, the same may be filled by such committee. ips, who had been nominated for that office by 97. It was urged by counsel for respondent another party, sought to have his name placed upon the ticket of the People's party under a nomination made by a certain number of electors, the certificate thereof designating him as People's party candidate. The effect would be, if his prayer had been granted, that his name would have gone upon the regular People's party ticket, and in the column upon the ballot set aside for the ticket of that party, and with the other candidates regularly nominated by a convention of that party. It was held that the certificate authorized his name to go upon the ballot as an independent candidate only, and that any number of electors could not secure the name of any candidate which they saw fit to indorse to be placed upon the ticket of any party. It will be observed, In an earlier part of this opinion we adwhether it is important or not, that the candi-verted to the method of making up the ballot, date seeking the aid of the court in that case was already named upon the ballot in the ticket of another party. The same comments are applicable to the case of Atkeson v. Lay, 115 Mo. 538, which was not cited by counsel,

that the language of 96, viz., "may be filled in the manner required for original nominations," expressly permitted a vacancy to be filled in either of the ways provided for the making of original nominations, irrespective of the manner in which the original nomination in the particular instance had been made; that is to say, either by convention (or committee, if authorized), primary meeting, or certificate of electors. Whether or not the language or purport of the statute goes to that extent we do not, as already intimated, express any opinion, as we find in this case the vacancies to have been filled in the same manner as the original nominations were made and presented.

from which it appears that there are no party headings thereon, nor columns set apart for separate parties; but the ballot is required to contain, in addition to the names of the candidates, the name of the party or principle repre

sented by them respectively as contained in which will accord to the citizen the_greater the certificate of nomination. It must be ob- liberty in casting his ballot. People, Eaton, v. served that the certificate under which the con- District Court, 18 Colo. 26. It has been held troversy arises as to the right to use the word that, where two factions of the same political "People's" is not arraigned by any persons or party have held separate conventions, and cerauthority representing the People's party. No titied nominations, using the same political one claiming any allegiance to that party is designation, the secretary of state is without here complaining of the act of Chairman Pat- authority to decide which of the two is entitled terson and his associates. The complaint to the party name, and is required in such case comes from the chairman of the state commit- to certify both sets of nominations, giving to tee of an entirely separate political party. each the political designation found in the cerWhile he probably has the right to prefer such tificate of nomination. People, Eaton, v. Disa complaint, and have the matter adjudicated, trict Court, supra; Phelps v. Piper, 48 Neb. nevertheless we are confronted with the fact 724, 33 L. R. A. 53; Shields v. Jacob, 88 Mich. that at the instance of one not affiliated with 164, 13 L. R. A. 760. In Kansas a nominathe People's party in any manner, so far as the tion by electors designating their single candirecord discloses, we are asked to judicially date as the nominee of the Miners' and Labordeny the right of more than 100 electors, in- ing Men's party was recognized as a party cluding the one highest in authority in the nomination, and the court says: "We think party in this state, describing themselves as that each political party has a perfect right to the representatives of that party, from giving select its candidates as it pleases, and have the party name to their candidates. If this their names printed under its party heading; certificate had come in conflict with other that there is nothing in the law nor in reason nominations made by the same party in regu- preventing two or more political parties, lar convention, a very different question might whether acting through conventions or by pearise. In the case at bar, however, we have titions, from selecting the same individuals before us the broad question whether, in any for one or more of the offices to be filled.” case, the secretary of state is at liberty to re- Simpson v. Osborn, 52 Kan. 328. In Miunespect the designation of a political party or sota the supreme court upheld as party nomiprinciple mentioned in a certificate of nomina- nees certain candidates named by a mass tion by electors, when the certificate is signed, convention. in opposition to rival candidates sworn to, and presented by the state chairman presented by a delegate convention of the same of such party, and in its body alleges that the party; one of the reasons assigned being the signers represent the party, in the absence of entire absence of any statutory provision reguany other existing nomination by such party lating the manner in which political parties for the same office; or whether he is bound to should proceed in organizing conventions or disregard such description, or add something making nominations. Manston v. McIntosh, to it, not found in the certificate, indicating 58 Minn. 525, 28 L. R. A. 605. To hold that the manner in which the nominations were the provisions of the statute authorizing a made. There can hardly exist a doubt but convention to make nominations, and defining that our legislation on the subject of elections a convention as an organized assemblage of is more or less imperfect, which fact invites electors representing some political party or conflict, and possibility of confusion; but the principle, necessarily confines a political party courts cannot supply omissions in the law. to proceedings by and through a convention, Anticipating, or perhaps having experienced, especially in view of the other provisions afcontroversy along this very line, many of the fecting nominations by electors' certificate, or states have explicitly regulated the manner in by petition, as it is sometimes popularly which party nominations may be made. There termed, would require the judiciary to interis nothing of that character in our law. We polate something which has been omitted, perhave searched the election law in vain to dis- haps purposely, from the statute. In the case cover any limitations upon party nominations. at bar no convention of the People's party has There is not a clause or line anywhere requir- acted as to two candidates for electors subseing or tending in that direction that a political quent to the declination of two persons named party can only present nominations for public in convention as well as by petition. No comoffice through the medium of party conven-mittee was given authority to act. The chairtions or primary meetings. The writer of this opinion believes that a wise regulation in that regard, and legislation explicitly defining the status of nominations by certificate of electors, would be desirable; but there is no such legislation at present, and the courts have no authority to place restrictions upon those matters when the legislature has left them open. A convention of delegates, or even a mass convention, is, after all, but a representation of some political party; neither constitutes the party itself; and until the appropriate department has limited or restricted the method by which a party may be represented, and through what character of representation it may act, we do not consider it within the province of the courts to do so. If there is any doubt about a matter of this character, then that construction of the statute should be adopted

man of the state committee, with 100 associates, present the certificate in question as alleged representatives of the party. If a party may, under any circumstances, act otherwise, than by convention or primary meeting, no lawful or reasonable objection can be urged to such action in the case and upon the facts before us. We conclude, therefore, that the respondent was not bound to disregard the political designation accompanying the names of the candidates Jordan and Sims in the certificate nominating them, that a fair and reasonable construction of the statute does not require him to add to or qualify the party name thus used. No such duty being imposed upon that officer, it does not rest upon the court.

The writ prayed for must be denied. Conaway, J., concurs. Groesbeck, Ch. J., did not participate in the decision.