The morning call., 1894-10-03
CUTS NO FIGURE.
No Political Party Name
Is Exclusive.
OPINION OF JUDGE SEAWELL
Important Decision That Affects
the Peoples Party.
USE OF THE NAME "POPULISTS."
DoIan and His Piece Club Can Or
ganiZe as POpulists and Not
Be Enjoined.
USE OF THE NAME "POPULIsTS.'

A very important decision was rendered
by Judge Seawell yesterday morning.
which promises to seriously complicate
matters at the ensuing municipal election.
1t decides in fact that no party or body of
men have any exclusive right to parlicu-
lar party name.
The decision given was in the suit
brought by j. V. Webster, PEOPLES party
nominee for Governor, Adolph Sutro, 4.
Nj. Wardell and II. W. Matthews, all
prominent Peoples party men, against P.
A. Dolan and others to restrain them from
adopting the name ''Populist" party, and
also TO enjoin the Registrar from issuing
certificate to the nominees OF D0lan's con-
vention. In the complaint the whole his
tory of the Peoples party was reclteG.
showing that there were both national and
State organizations under the name and
style OF the Peoples party. but that their
members had long been accustomed TO call
themselves "Populists."
The complaint further alleged that at
the last election a piece club headed by
the defendant Dolan was known as the
Property-owners' Independe party. Now
this institution had assumed the name Of
the municipal ticket. 1t was maintained
that the name of "Populist' was merely
assumed to catch votes, and that if such
name were to find its way on to the ticket
many old Peoples party mem bers might
be deceived into voting for members of this
''piece club" under the impression that
they were voting for members of their own
party.
In written opinion Judge Seawell de-
cided yesterday that no injunction must
issue. He held that the court had no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
suit. The courts aid could not be in
yoked in cases affecting property rights.
mo one or no body of men have an exclu-
sive right to the use Of a party name.
The trademark laws do not apply here,
and there is no such thing as proprietary
right to the name of political party"
Judge Seawell further held that the Peo-
pies party of which the petitioners were
members was not the first organization In
corporated under that name The defini-
tlon contained in the Century Dictionary
was quoted as showing that this was a
name that was frequently adopted by
ephemeral political parties. especially
those springing up from the laboring
classes. The Judge spoke of a former
Peoples. party that had existed in San
Francisco and said that he had reason to
believe that under its administration the
city was extremely we'll governed.
At any rate, his Hontr held that the
names Peoples party and Populist were
| not identical, and that even if it were true
| that as was herein alleged, the name
'Populist' had been assumed by the plain
tiffs long before the defendants organiza-
| ton was formed. yet the law was intended
to secure the election of the best nominees
| and not a plumber Of men placed on one
ticket. 1t was t, carry out this idea that
the Australian ballot law had been intro
| duced at the last elections.
In conclusion Judge Seawell cited a
case in point decided in tha State of
| Colorado some time age. In this case there
| had been a split in the Democratic party,
and each side brought suit to restrain the
other from making use OF the party name.
1t was decided by the court that neither
side had the exclusive right to the use Of
the party name; that the party name
counted for nothing, and that the Regis
trar could not be enjoined from issuing
certificates to the nominees of any party
or body of men who acted in conformity
with the law, no matter under what anne
they formed their organization. In that
case the court said:
Little weight should be attached to the
argument that the voters may be deceived
| by having two Democratic tickets in the
field. at one time. no doubt, voters were
often misled by having names printed
under certain designated headings which
did not properly belong hereunder. But
this deception was only accomplished by
secrecy and by the lateness of the hour al
which such irregular tickets were dis
Enthusiastically only upon the day OF
election. But under the present law the
danger of deception in the manner indi-
Gated is certainly reduced to a minimum.
The Secretary of State is required to Ger
tify these tickets 70 the County Clerk, and
| he, in turn, to cause the same to be pub.
| lished several days before the election
| Thus the fullest opportunity to expose
fraud and prevent deception is provided
| for"
On these grounds Judge Seawell decided
that he had no authority to grant the In.
Junction asked for. The temporary in.
junction, therefore. was ordered to be
dissolved ana the defendants demurrer tC
the comps int sustained