The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-09-26
ONLY THREE PARTIES.

Attorney General Hart occupies three
columns of contemporary with an argu-
ment TO show that the Non-Partisan organ
iZatiOn is not entitled to heading Oh the
official ballot. This opinion has been ex-
pected for some days. The order was
issued from Third street several days ago
that all possible obstacles should be thrown
in the way Of the Non Partisans. But Mr..
Hart has not thrown much light on the
subject. He contends that name should
not be allowed the Non-Partisans for the
reason that any individual candidate may
demand a like privilege. Mr.. Hart says:
IF party or candidates nominated under
said section Q18Sl is entitled to a heading.
then every person nominated under that
section is entitled to a beading" Mr.. Hart
does not see any difference between the
Non-Partisan organization and an individual
who pTOeuTes his own nomination for
Office. lie would provide, however, for
the formation of new party by por-
hitting the candidates nominated by petit
tion TO class themselves in a party sense by
affixing to their names the term Mon
Partisan" Peoples party" or whatever
otEer name the organization OF which such
candidate is a nominee may adopt. Every
Nom Partisan candidate may attach the
name "Non-P Partisan" to his own, but the
name "N0n-Partisan" must not be placed
at the head of the ticket. The voter will
naturally ask "WLy?" and Mr.. Hart's
fine sense Of honor will compel him to
answer that If the name ''Non- Partisan" Is
placed above the N0n-P Partisan candidates
voter may vote a straight Non Partisan
ticket by stamping cross upon the blank
opposite the party name. while if the word
'N0n- Partisan" is added to each name to
designate his party relations the voter
must stamp a cross in the blank opposite
each N0n-Partisan candidates name. IL
is assumed that voters who are not
absolutely determined to vote the Nom
Partisan ticket will vote one Of the
three recognized party tickets rather
than take the trouble to stamp every
Non Partisan name. Mr.. Hart arrives at
his conclusions by assuming that section
! 1888 is practically obiterated by sections
which come after il. Mr.. Hart says: Sec
ton 1897 was passed at the same time as the
! other sections, but it is subsequent in
numerical order. and therefore the Leg
| islature practically, by express pro-
| vision, intentionally left out of it sec
| ton 1888" This Is the reasoning a
Police Court pettifogger might resort
| to to get client off on serious charge by
! paying nominal fine. 1t is not likely that
section 1888 will be knocked out of the
election law so easily as Mr.. Hart antici-
! pates. The fact was commented on at the
time that the new election law was shaped
by Its opponents. Perceiving that the
people demanded such law, the Judiciary
Committee OF the last Assembly fixed up a
bill providing for nominations by petition,
| and submitted it to the members OF that
body. 1t was not what the friends OF the
Australian system wanted, but it was the
best they could get. They took it with all
its imperfeetons rather than nothing. The
same gang OF machine politicians who
mangled the bill in the Assembly are now
engaged In an effort to make 1t impractic-
able. If they succeed in Withholding from