Hogan v. Collins

• Decision Date: 26 February 1903
• Citation: 183 Mass. 43,66 N.E. 429
• Parties: HOGAN v. COLLINS. SAME v. SHAW et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

183 Mass. 43

66 N.E. 429

HOGAN

v.COLLINS.

SAME

v.SHAW et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Feb. 26, 1903.

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk county; John Lathrop, Judge.

Mandamus by one Hogan against one Shaw and others to compel relator's recognition as a member of the board of election commissioners of the city of Boston, and certiorari by the same petitioner to review the action of Patrick Collins in removing petitioner from such office. The petitions were both dismissed, and petitioner brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.Elder & Whitman, for petitioner.

Thos. M. Babson, City Sol., for defendants.

BRALEY, J.

By St. 1895, c. 449, entitled ‘An act to revise the charter of the city of Boston,’ an election department was created, to be in charge of four election commissioners, who should be ‘so selected that two will always be of the political party which at the annual state election next preceding their appointment cast the largest vote for governor’; and after the first appointments were made, then ‘annually * * * one such commissioner shall be appointed * * * for the term of four years, beginning with the first day of May in the year of his appointment.’ ‘Said officers shall be citizens and voters of Boston and shall be appointed by the mayor of said city, without confirmation by the board of aldermen.’ This department succeeded to the powers and duties formerly conferred upon and exercised by the board of registrars of voters, including the preparation of the jury list, and also to ‘all the powers and duties relating to the selection of election officers, the preparation of ballots, the posting and publishing of lists of candidates, the furnishing of places for voting, the care of ballot boxes, the registration of voters, the determination of the results of elections, and all other matters relating to elections in said city, now conferred upon the mayor, board of aldermen or city clerk of said city, except the power and duty of giving notice of elections and fixing the days and hours of holding the same.’ In addition, the commissioners, as a board, were made the ‘Boston ballot law commission,’ which ‘shall in all matters relating to objections and questions arising in the case of nominations of candidates for city offices in said city, have all the powers and duties prescribed for the ballot law commission of the state in matters under their jurisdiction.’ When sitting as a ballot law commission, the chief justice of the municipal court of Boston, or, in case of his sickness or disability, the next senior justice of the court, is to preside. By this act commissioners so selected and appointed were clothed with large ministerial and judicial powers, requiring men not only of sufficient ability to perform the duty of such a responsible and important public office, but also of such character and reputation as to merit and receive the respect and confidence of the community whom they represent. On May 1, 1900, the petitioner was appointed, under the act, a member of said board. He accepted the appointment, and entered upon the discharge of the duties of his office. On March 31, 1902, a complaint and petition asking for the removal of the petitioner was filed with the respondent, as mayor of the city of Boston. The principal grounds of the complaint were that at the time of the appointment of the petitioner he did not come within the meaning of the act providing for the appointment of election commissioners, in that he was not ‘then and is not now a member of the Democratic Party, within the meaning of said act,’ and also ‘that he is incompetent to hold such office, and that he has not properly conducted himself in said office.’ Subsequently, on April 18, 1902, the...