McKane v. Democratic General Committee

By this action the appellant has sought the aid of the courts to compel a voluntary political association of individuals, organized without a charter, but regulated as to their action by a constitution and by-laws, to admit him to membership and to office with them. The action is against the Democratic Gene

It appears that the plaintiff was formerly a member of the Democratic Association of the town of Gravesend and a delegate upon the general committee from that town. In December, 1887, the Democratic Association of the town of Gravesend, upon charges preferred against it by the Democratic Campaign Committee, was impeached, tried and disbanded by the General Committee. A re-organization of the town association was undertaken and a primary election thereupon ordered by the General Committee of the county ■ organization at which the plaintiff was elected a delegate to the General Committee. What he complains of is that being so elected he was entitled to be admitted as a member of that committee, but that by a majority vote it refused to accept the returns of the primary election, referred back the vacancy created and refused to recognize him as a delegate. By that action on its part, he says, he was deprived of his rights and privileges as a member and of the benefits and advantages to flow therefrom. He wants a judgment that he was elected a member of the General Committee; an injunction enjoining its members from holding him out from his office as a member, and a judgment for possession of the office and the enjoyment of its rights.

It is difficult to see upon what theory the plaintiff rests Ms right to any relief of a legal or equitable nature. It is quite unlike the cases in the books where an individual having been admitted to membership of a social club or other voluntary association for purposes of pleasure or profit, and thereby becoming entitled to a right to participate in whatever practical rights or advantages may pertain to membership, seeks redress for some violation of his personal rights. Here, By the disbandment of his town association, plaintiff had ceased to be a member of the General Committee. He admits and avers the fact and he makes no complaint of the proceedings. His status, therefore, is that though his town association elected him as a delegate to the General Committee of the county organization, the members of that body have refused to admit Mm to association with them in their office. And if they would and will not associate with Mm, upon what reasoning or principle should they be compelled to, and the aid of a court of justice invoked ?

The right to be a member is not conferred by any statute; nor is it derivable, as in the case of an incorporated body. It is by reason of the.- action and of the assent of the members of the voluntary association that one becomes associated with them in

We cannot compare this case to that of other voluntary associations; nor to a copartnership, to which an unincorporated association is sometimes likened, when considering the rights of the associates in the property of the association and the methods for their enforcement. The Kings County Democratic Organization was a voluntary association of persons who were presumably interested, from the very fact of such an organization, in the furtherance of the interests and principles of the democratic party in that county. Its objects do not involve any combination or acquisition of property, and membership of it, or of its general committee, can have no conceivable pecuniary value. The only tie which binds its members is a common faith in the cause, and the only obligation upon them is to act in harmony, that by unity of action success may attend upon their efforts. We have in such an association what we must assume to be the voluntary organization of citizens moved only by patriotic considerations in an endeavor to strengthen their party and to promote its interests by organized and systematic work. Our private convictions may possibly, and at times, be at war with the assumption; but, I think, we must all concede that organization of human effort for the realization of ideas of political government is as necessary as it is often commendable. How can it be said that in such work anything like a contract relation subsists, or that there can be any obligation confining the free exercise of the personal rights of citizens ? Shall they not be free to reject as an associate, or as an officer of their association, one whose character, aims or record may, in their judgment, fall below the standard of loyalty or of integrity demanded by the work in which they are engaged, or who for any cause satisfactory to their minds is unfit for the position of leadership he demands to occupy ? Surely, such propositions would seem to contain their own refutation. The existence of constitutions and by-laws does not alter the question. Obedience to their requirements may well be demanded as a condition of association; but it would be in conflict with the principles of our government and with the spirit and intent of our laws if by any contractual obligation, express or implied, the individual action of the citizen could be fettered in his choice of political associates or leaders, or in the freest exercise of the political rights

The fundamental error in the contention of the plaintiff and of his counsel consists in their treating the case as though the plaintiff, because elected as a delegate to the general committee, had thereby acquired some property rights, or had become invested with some personal privileges, in the enjoyment of which by his rejection at the hands of the committee he had been disturbed.

Such a proposition finds no support upon any principle of law or of ethics, and authority for such an action is utterly wanting. At the most, plaintiff’s only apparent cause of complaint is that the general committee have refused him participation in their councils. Whether that rejection has been based upon irregularities in his return, or upon his personal untrustworthiness as a party leader, is quite immaterial here, and is a question which, we think, is to Ido decided by the parties and not in the courts.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.