People ex rel. Quinn v. Voorhis

The defendants appeal from an order of the Special Term granting a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the board of elections “ to publish a list of places for the, registration and polling of votes according to the Election Laws of the State of Hew York, and especially Section 10 thereof, in four (4) daily newspapers published in the Borough of Manhattan which advocate the election of William Randolph Hearst as the candidate of the Democratic party for Gov*122ernor.” The relator moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the writ of mandamus was duly issued, and on the eighth day of October, the same date on which the notice of appeal was served, the board of elections met and in compliance with the mandamus designated four' papers for the publication of election notices, as required by the writ. The writ issued required the defendants to convene' “ for the purpose of designating four daily newspapers published in the Borough of Manhattan, in the City of Hew York, in which are to be printed the general election notices in. the city of Hew York, Borough of Manhattan, which said newspapers advocate the eléction of William Randolph Hearst as the candidate of the Democratic party for' Governor, the said Democratic party being the party polling the next highest number of votes at the last election for Governor in the State of Hew York, and its. platform as adopted at tlie State Convention held on the 26th day of September, 1906,- at the City of ISuffalo, State of'Hew York, at which William Randolph Hearst of Hew York was nominated for Governor and the Democratic ticket as nominated at said convention.” The .statute does not require the board to designate newspapers, but to cause the notices to be published. The board having acted under a command of the writ, its action is¡ not an exercise of discretion, but an act commanded by the Supreme Court. If the writ was inrprop-erly issued the subsequent publications could be made in such newspapers as the .board should select as complying with the statute;' and there is presented, therefore,, a question as to whether the court below correctly construed section 10 of the Election Law When it was held that the board was bound under the law to select four-newspapers that supported the candidate for Governor nominated by the Democratic party, the party polling “ the next highest number of votes ” at the last preceding election for Governor. Section 10 of the Election Law (Laws of 1896, chap. 909, as amd. bv Laws of 1906; chap. 259) provides that “ in the borough of Manhattan such publication shall be made in four daily newspapers published in the borough of Manhattan which advocate the principles of the political party-polling the highest number of votes in the State at the last .preceding election for Governor, and also in fohr daily newspapers published in the borough of Manhattan which advocate the principles of the political party polling the next highest number of votes for Gov*123ernor at said election.” This provision contains no reference to a , candidate of either of the parties. Supporting a candidate is not made the test by which the commissioners are to be governed in the selection of the newspapers. A newspaper may, for personal reasons, refuse to support' one or more candidates nominated by a political party to which it adheres, and may at the same time support the principles of the party. There is no more reason that the nominee for Governor should be selected as the test as to whether a newspaper • supports the principles of the party than any other candidate upon the ticket. I think, therefore, the court was clearly in error in commanding the defendants to select newspapers for this publication supporting the candidate for Governor on the Democratic ticket. It was the duty of the defendants to select four newspapers for the publication of these election notices, papers supporting the principles of the Democratic party at the election to be held in November, and they did not comply with their duty if they selected papers that supported the prinmples. of the Republican party, or any other party except the Democratic party. The petition alleges that the defendants had selected, as representing the principles of the Democratic party, four newspapers in the city of New York, namely, the World, Sun, Times and Staats-Zeiiung, and that these four newspapers “ do not advocate the principles of the Democratic Party, being the political party polling the next highest number of votes in the State of New York at the last preceding election for Governor; ” and, further, that the act of - the defendants, in designating these four newspapers, “ was in contravention of the statute in such case made and provided, inasmuch as none of the papers so designated advocates the principles of the political party polling the next highest number of votes for Governor at the last election, to wit, the democratic party ; ” that “ The World, The Sun, The Times and the Staats-Zeitung immediately heretofore, and after said nominations, advocated and does now advocate the principles of the Republican Party, to represent which, in accordance with the law, the said Board of Elections had already appointed the Mail, The Globe, The Press and The Tribune, which have at all times advocated the principles of the said Republican Party.” This allegation is not denied, and the court had before it, therefore, simply an allegation that the board had selected newspapers that *124supported the.principles of the Republican .party under a statutory provision which requires them to designate newspapers supporting the principles of the Democratic party. ' It follows that the act of the defendants' in designating these newspapers was not a compliance with the statute, and that the court, in a proper case, was justified in issuing a mandamus requiring the board to publish these ■ election notices in four newspapers representing the principles of the Democratic party.

For the reasons stated, however, by Mr. Justice Clarke, I concur with him in the conclusions at-which he has arrived.

The appeal is from an order of the Special Term directing that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue herein, commanding the defendants, as commissioners composing the board of elections of the city of New York and their successors in office, to “ publish a list of places for the registration and polling of -votes according to the Election Laws of the State of New York, and especially section 10 thereof, in four (4) daily newspapers published in the Borough of Manhattan, which advocate the election of William Randolph Hearst as the candidate of the Democratic Party for Governor, the said Democratic Party being the political party polling the next highest number of votes for Governor at the last, election in the State of New York, and its platform” adopted at the last State convention at which said Hearst was nominated for Governor “ and the Democratic ticket as nominated at said Convention.” On the motion to1 dismiss the appeal it appears that-a peremptory writ of mandamus has been duly issued pursuant to the order appealed from, commanding the appellants to convene and designate for the purpose of publishing said election notices four daily newspapers which advocate the election of said Hearst and the platform of the Democratic party as adopted at its last State convention and the Democratic ticket nominated at said convention; that pursuant to the command of said writ the appellants convened as a board of elections and reconsidered and rescinded a resolution adopted on *120the 4th day of October, 1966, which, among other things, designated the Sun, the World, the Times and the Staats-Zeitung aa daily newspapers advocating the principles of the Democratic party in ¿which the election u'otides, should .be published and revoking and annulling l< any authority for the publication of the-said election notices that may be contained in the letter of the President ” of the board to the publishers of said newspapers, which.letter was dated .on the 4th day of October,. 1906, and- thereupon adopted a resolution designating the New York Daily News, New York American, the Telegraph and the.Morgen Journal as daily newspapers published in fh,e borough of Manhattan in which said election notices should be published; that said resolution reconsidering and.rescinding the former resolution was adopted at three o’clock on ihe afternoon of the 8th day of October, 1906, and the resolution making a new designation of newspapers was adopted- half an hour later, and that-the notice of ajipeal was not-served until late in the afternoon of the' same day. No costs were awarded on granting the order, and, therefore, since the appellants, instead of applying for a stay and taking an, appeal, .have fully complied with the -mandamus ' issued pursuant to the order, this subsequent appeal can be of no avail or effect so far' as this proceeding is concerned. Notwithstanding this fact, it is urged that the cáse falls within the rule that-where an important public question is involved; the, court instead of dismissing an appeal, even though the' order appealed from has been executed,, will retain the case and express an opinion upon the law as a precedent for the guidance of public officials in the future.

We are of opinion that this case; is not one in which that course should be followed. The appellants, instead of presenting aiiy evi- . dence to sustain their action or giving notice to the proprietors of the newspapers first designated as Democratic papers by them, and ■ affording them an opportunity to apply for intervention dr to present, affidavits showing that they .were supporting. the principles,, although not the present candidates, of the Democratic party, which might render them eligible for designation under the statute (Election Law [Laws of 1896, chap. 909], § 10, as amd. by Laws of Í906, chap. 259), have allowed- the, allegations of the petition, charging not only that the newspapers first designated by them were not supporting the candidates of the Democratic party, but also *121that they were not supporting the principles of the Democratic party, and on the contrary were supporting both the candidates and the principles of the Republican party, to remain undenied. It is manifest, therefore, that the record as made does not present for determination the correctness of the theory upon which the appellants doubtless originally acted, or the -claims that may be made in behalf of the newspapers originally designated, that, although not supporting the candidates, they are still loyal to the principles and are supporting the principles of the Democratic party and might, therefore, be ' eligible for such designation.

It was stated upon the argument, but does not. appear in the record, although it is to be inferred from the papers upon which the motion to dismiss is made, that the president of the board, after the original designation of newspapers, by a letter duly authorized the proprietors of the newspapers to commence the publication, and that the board, without any notice or hearing to the proprietors of. those papers, has assumed to rescind the resolution and to annul the authority for publishing the notices theretofore given pursuant thereto, and has authorized the proprietors of the newspapers designated on the eighth of October to publish the notices. It would be improper, in view of the state of this record, as already indicated, for this court to express any decided opinion which might embarrass the proprietors of the newspapers in asserting their claim for the publication of the notices either under the original designation or under the last designation. We have, therefore, reached the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed, and an order ot that effect may be entered.

Patterson and Houghton, JJ., concurred; Ingraham and Clarke, JJ., dissented.

I am of the opinion that the order appealed from .should be reversed and the application for a peremptory writ of mandamus denied. The petitioner was the publisher of the Hew York Daily News, and made'his application, to the court, not in the capacity of a citizen,' or representative of a political party for the purpose of settling a public question, but to compel the board of elections to designate the paper of which he was the publisher'as one of the papers, in which the election notices should be published for the purpose of obtaining payment therefor from the city.

The petition presented to the court prayed that a writ of mandamus issue commanding the board of elections to designate the Daily News as one of the four Democratic papers in which said election notices shall be inserted, and nothing else. And the order to show cause upon which the order appealed from herein was granted, was to the same effect,'although it did conclude with the phrase “and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper in the premises.” The order to show cause, however, must be governed and interpreted by the petition, and the relief granted must be. that clearly asked for and indicated by .the moving papers. The relief demanded by the petition was denied; and the order granted relief not contemplated nr prayed for, and which may have interfered with vested rights without notice to or hearing of interested parties. It undertook by mandamus proceedings to review and set aside'the action of the'board of elections, a board which exercises quasi judicial functions, in determining in the exercise of its discretion a question of fact. The order also injected into the statute a *125provision as to the advocacy of a particular candidate for a particular office, in place of the advocacy of the principles of a party, as the test to be applied in determining the papers in which the notices should be published.

The office of a writ of mandamus is to compel specific action in the exercise of purely ministerial functions. If the performance of an official act involves discretion, courts, although they have power to demand action, have no right to say that it must be in a particular way. As the petition in the matter at bar asked and only asked for a particular exercise of the discretion of the board, it should have been denied; and it seems to me any action of the court based upon such papers as are here presented was unauthorized and improper.

In People ex rel. Francis v. Common Council (78 N. Y. 41) where there was a question of the designation of four papers having the largest circulation in the city of Troy and the common council had selected four, and another paper petitioned the court, the court said: “ The four papers designated have acted under their appointment. They are not parties to this proceeding, and their appointment would not be vacated by any judgment which could be rendered herein. There would in that case be five official papers when the law authorizes only four. It would be difficult to say that the claims of the papers appointed by the common council, for services rendered could be successfully resisted by the city on the. ground of any invalidity in their appointment. The effect of the mandamus would be to compel the appointment of a fifth paper without disturbing that of the other four. A very clear case should be made out to induce the court to subject the city to this additional expense, and we do not find the right of the relators to a mandamus so plain as to justify that course.”

It is true that the court by its order did not direct the designa- ■ tion of relator’s paper, but it did direct the board to select four papers which .advocated the election of a particular candidate as the candidate of the Democratic party for the office of Governor, in spite of the fact that it appeared from the papers submitted that the board had already designated four papers, and it is evident upon the face of these papers that in order to comply with the peremptory mandamus the board must first rescind its prior action, the con*126sequences of which rescission may he to seriously impair contractual rights already existing without an opportunity to the holders of such rights, if such there were, to he heard.

As I think the order appealed from was unauthorized,, it should be reversed and the motion forjnandaimis denied.

Ingraham, J., concurred.

Appeal dismissed.