The morning call., 1892-10-08

Strifs Tries to Make Beatty See the Point
claimed, that in the absence of either the
Election Commission or the Registrar de-
volved upon the County Clerk.
The duties OF the Registrar were such "a
were heretofore performed by the Comfy
Clerk; therefore. upon him alone was i'm
posed theduty of printing the official ballots.
G. j. Swift spoke first in answer to the
counsel for the Election Commission. The
question as TO whether the Non Partisaus
should be accorded ticket heading in
volved a great deal Of principle By DENYING
the Non Partisans this right the Flection
Commissioners were debarring them from a
constitutional priyiege-that of free and
equal suffrage.
What was the meaning Of the thirteen tn
and fourteenth amendments TO the constitu-
ton of the United States? asked Mr.. Swift.
They distinctly declared that no State
shall enact laws interfering with or infring-
ing or impairing the right of free suffrage.
The State con stltutlon contained clause,
Mr.. Swift said. which declared that all laws
of general nature should have uniform
application.
How could this law have uniform appli-
cation If IL were construed to mean that
only certain electors should have the priyi-
lege of voting for their party as a whole?
1.-THE construction they would have YOU
give this law" said Mr.. Swift. "y0uId
frage and make the whole law unconstiiu-
tonal. Construed in their way II cannot be
uniform in its operation.
where would the Republican party be
to-day If such law had been enforced
against them when Mr.. Lincoln first ran
for the Presidency"
Mr., Swift devoted the rest of his argu-
ment to refuting the technical points raised
by Mr.. Dorm.
Ex-Judge John Currey began his argu-
ment by declaring that the construction Of
the new law asked for by Mr. DorE would
tend to perpetuate boss rule and throttle
the right of the voter
he then quoted a number Of authorities
bearing out the proposition that the law
should be so construed as to make It con-
soDant with the constitution of the United
States and of the State Of California.
Wherever possible new law should be
so construed as to avoid the alternative of
making 1t unconstitutional
he then claimed that the electors who
make nominations are as much party as
the convention which makes nominations.
He insisted, too, that If any part OF the la "
was to be construed literally it was that
clause which was in entire harmony with
the constituti0n-tnat section which says
that the certifcatIon Of electors shall have
the same effect as the certifcation Of con-
ventiOn.
AT the conclusion of ex-Judge Currey's
argument. in response to an inquiry from
the Chief Justice, Mr.. Dorm said that neither
Mr.. Swift nor Mr.. Currey would maintain
that their party could hold a convention
and make nominations.
Then it was that Justice Beatty declared
that be could not see why body of electors
should not be a party without as we'll as
with machine"
Mr.. Dorm was rather Disconnected, and
said nothing.
Thomas Y. Gator, on behalf Of the Peo-
pies party, made an able areumens against
the rnIipg of the Election Commission.
s.Tfe electors make the party, ie said
mot the candidate. The certihcation of {
per cent of the voters was equivalent 10 q
convention nomination" he held, 'and
therefore was 10 all intents and purposes q
party nomination.
1T would be an unconstitutional discrim-
ination, beyond all doubt. TO give one party
a ticket heading and deny it to another.
IF the court shall construe the law as
Mr.. Dorm construes il we ask that the entire
ticket be printed without party headings
We demand this as constitutional right"
Garret McEnerney was the last SPEAK er.
He did what he could, with the el0Quence
of voice and gesture, 10 back up the argu-
ments Of Mr.. Dorm.
Then both questions raised were taken
under Amusement, with the understanding
that decision be arrived at within the next
ten days.
This afternoon the Supreme Court leaves
for Los Angeles.