Barceló v. Saldaña

42 P.R. 219
CourtSupreme Court of Puerto Rico
DecidedMay 20, 1931
DocketNo. 271
StatusPublished

This text of 42 P.R. 219 (Barceló v. Saldaña) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barceló v. Saldaña, 42 P.R. 219 (prsupreme 1931).

Opinions

Mu. Chief Justice Del Tobo

delivered the opinion of the Court.

On February 18, 1931, Antonio R. Barceló and Miguel Martorell, alleging that they were the nominees of the Union Party of Puerto Rico, respectively, for the office of Resident Commissioner to the United States, and as a Member of the Board of Review and Equalization of Puerto Rico, and that Eduardo J. Saldana, Executive Secretary of Puerto Rico, had refused to register and record their nominations in the books of his office in order to certify and transmit the same at the proper time to the Insular Board of Elections of Puerto Rico, to be printed on the official ballot that should be used in the general election of 1932, petitioned this Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the said Eduardo J. Saldana, Executive Secretary of Puerto Rico, to so register their names, claiming that what had been requested of him constituted the fulfillment on his part of a ministerial duty resulting from his office or employment.

After considering the petition a rule was issued directed to the Executive Secretary commanding him to appear before the Court on February 26, 1931, and show cause, if any he had, why the writ of mandamus sought should not be allowed.

On the day set the Secretary appeared and presented his written answer in opposition, to the issuance of the writ. The petitioners also appeared. The Puerto Rican Alliance Party, composed of the Union Party of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rican Republican Party, represented by its President, Rafael Cuevas Zequeira, asked leave to intervene in the proceeding as an interested party. This was opposed by the petitioners and, in view of the special law on the matter, the Court denied the intervention, but permitted the Alliance to appear as amicus curiae. Oral arguments were made by the [222]*222attorneys for the petitioners, for the Executive Secretary, and for the Alliance Party. The petitioners and the respondent introduced their evidence and on the following day, February 27, 1928, the hearing was concluded. Both the petitioners and the respondent amended their pleading’s, the petition and the answer, substituting these amended pleadings for those originally filed. Instead of further oral argument it was agreed that the parties and the amicus curiae should file briefs, which they did, the ease being finally submitted to the Court on April 2, 1931.

In our opinion the petition for mandamus should he denied. We will set forth our reasons therefor. The conclusions of fact, are based on the pleadings and the evidence. The law governing the case is brief and simple. The applicable jurisprudence would be susceptible of a much broader study than, is allowed by the time at our disposal. However, we shall refer to the fundamental decisions in point.

In the year 1924 there existed in Puerto Rico as principal political parties, duly organized, the Union Party of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rican Republican Party. Both held conventions for considering a certain movement of approximation initiated by their leaders. The convention of the former was held in San Germán and that of the latter in Mayagüez. As a result, a coalition was agreed upon under the name of Puerto Rican Alliance on the following bases:

“. . . (b) The Puerto Rican Alliance shall assume and exercise all the powers and prerogatives appertaining to the two historical parties of Puerto Rico called the Union Party of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rican Republican Party.
“(c) The Puerto Rican Alliance shall direct all its efforts to the consecration of full self-government in order to attain the sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico within the sovereignty of the United States. . .”

In pursuance of that agreement, the central directive committee of the Alliance was organized composed of fifteen permanent members and fifteen alternates, seven permanent [223]*223members and seven alternates, being designated by the convention of the Union Party of Puerto Eico from a list of twenty-one names furnished by the convention of the Puerto Eican Eepnblican Party and another seven permanent members and seven alternates being designated by the convention of the Puerto Eican Eepnblican Party from a list of twenty-one names furnished by the convention of the Union Party of Puerto Eico, the remaining permanent member and alternate member to be chosen by a unanimous vote of the fourteen permanent members so designated.

The organization of the local committees was agreed upon in a similar manner: They should consist of seven members, three of whom should be Unionists, three Eepublicans and the seventh to be designated by the Central Directive Committee. It was expressly agreed that “The Directive Committee shall choose the members of the local committees of the Coalition from among the persons who in the respective municipal districts form the local board of the said party, if persons friendly to the coalition, can be found; otherwise the selection may be made, in whole or in part, outside the local boards. The members of each party in the said committees shall assume the functions corresponding to the party which they represent for the purposes of the electoral and municipal laws.”

The members of the Directive Committee of the Alliance designated unanimously by the convention of the Union Party of Puerto Eico were Antonio E. Barceló, Jesús Benitez, Alfonso Lastra Charriez, Arturo G-onzález Prado, Arsenio Martinez, Miguel Guerra-Mondragón and Nicolás Santini, permanent members; Juan Hernández López, José Castillo, Emilio González, José P. Aponte, Genaro Cautiño, Adriano González and Carlos Brunet del Valle, alternates.

The minutes of the special General Convention of the Union Party of Puerto Eico held in San Germán on the 4th and 5th of May, 1924, conclude as follows:

[224]*224“On the proposal of Mr. Barceló, it was agreed to send a fraternal greeting to the members of the republican convention assembled at Mayagüez and to their illustrious President as well as to the veteran advisers of the Union, Messrs. Francisco de Paula Acuña, Eduardo Giorgetti, and Cayetano Coll y Tosté. Likewise, on motion of Mr. Barceló, it was agreed to record a vote of thanks for the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico in Washington, Mr. Córdova Davila, for his patriotic labors in behalf of Puerto Rico.
“Messrs. Rafael Cuevas Zequeira and Juan Hernández López delivered eloquent addresses praising the patriotism shown by the conventions of the two historical parties composing the Puerto Rican Alliance, and the session was closed by Mr. Barceló with the same words uttered in Ponce by the late patriot Román Baldorioty de Castro in the celebrated convention at which the Puerto Rican Autonomist party was organizéd: ‘Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth to men of good will.’
“And the convention was adjourned.”

With these words the separate convention of the Union Party of Puerto Rico was closed, according to the official book containing a record of the proceedings introduced in evidence by the petitioners. They appear on page 126 of that book. The next entry, beginning on page 127, was dated five years later, on August 2, 1929.

Then, the coalition having been formed, the Central Directive Committee began to act at once and, the local committees having been organized, the life of the new political organization so formed was developed through them.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Fisher
6 U.S. 358 (Supreme Court, 1805)
Doggett v. Railroad Co.
99 U.S. 72 (Supreme Court, 1879)
Murphy v. Curry
70 P. 461 (California Supreme Court, 1902)
Ex Parte Boyce
75 P. 1 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1904)
Newell v. People Ex Rel. Phelps
7 N.Y. 9 (New York Court of Appeals, 1852)
The People Ex Rel. Jackson v. . Potter
47 N.Y. 375 (New York Court of Appeals, 1872)
Matter of Hopper v. . Britt
96 N.E. 371 (New York Court of Appeals, 1911)
Matter of Callahan
93 N.E. 262 (New York Court of Appeals, 1910)
Ex Parte Wilson
1912 OK CR 225 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1912)
People v. Frisbie
26 Cal. 135 (California Supreme Court, 1864)
People ex rel. Morgan v. Hayne
7 L.R.A. 348 (California Supreme Court, 1890)
Chase v. Petroleum Bank
66 Pa. 169 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1870)
Nicholls v. Barrick
27 Colo. 432 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1900)
Wason v. Rowe
16 Vt. 525 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1844)
State ex rel. Perry v. Arrington
18 Nev. 412 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1884)
Ex parte Kair
28 Nev. 425 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1905)
Morrow v. Wipf
115 N.W. 1121 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1908)
Davis v. Hambrick
58 S.W. 779 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1900)
Leonard v. Wiseman
31 Md. 201 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1869)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 P.R. 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barcelo-v-saldana-prsupreme-1931.