The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-11-09
cities, and for the one city and county an
entirely different mode, '1 "--


Passing to the second point. Mr. Delmas
said that If in the selection of officers from
the TWO main political parties the law is
declared invalid, it will be very far reach
ing, Tor the sections of the Political Code
regarding elections uniformly prescribe
t I quallneatlons, and elections have
been held under these provisions for many
years. o- LAY
me provision requiring that the selec-
tlon OF commissioners be made equally
rom the two dominant parties. Mr..
Delmas urged, was philosophically
reasonable and politically Just. There
MN MN alIays be two dominant political par
ties and there have always been two. and
1t Is not strange that the Legislature
sought, by relying upon the watchfulness
OF one over the other, to insure o fair
election.
he spoke then of the educational quail
ncatlohs, the property qualifications and
oeItaih Tune OF residence demanded for
eleclon o1ncers. They must be men of
property to make them responsible; they
III ust require residence to understand the
poiltlcs OF their locality, and thew must
pelong to different parties because it has
oeeh seen that wisdom suggests the plac-
ing OF the election machinery in charge of
those whose differences will insure fair
ness. If the political qualification be
declared unconstitutional, then the whole
electlon system of this State has Tor wears
peen invalid. He cited also the practice
OF drawing luries in Federal courts by BIZ
party boards, and also of the bi-partv and
consequently non-partisan scheme which
runs all through the Federal system
AS to the third point that it gives over
the appointments TO the acting power of
the State Central Committee, Mr.. Delmas
SAID that granting that the law was in this
particular open to objection, the power OF
veto mad not been exercised, and hence In
thls case the point would not be consid-
ered. The court would not therefore take
cognizance of that claim.
Ihls finished Mr.. Delmas' oral argu-
| ment, ard as the questions were of great
| PUBIC Importance he asked and was given
permission to file brief. Then McEnerney
| closed the argument.
While the fate of the election was being
argued pro and con in the Supreme Court
the fee bill was before Judge Seawell
There was much contention as to whether
! or not the lee bill OF 1895 repealed the fee
bill OF 1866 and as to the constitutionality
OF the bill of 1895. The case was on the de-
murrer of C. F. Curry, County Clerk. to the
complaint OF w. H. Murphy.
Frank S. Klngwell represented Murphy
ana w. ii. l.. Barnes and Mr.. Adams rep
resented the County Clerk. Mastick and
Mastlck appeared amicus curiae. The
statements of the case were not fully gone
into, but Will be in briefs filed later on
|
summed up, however, in the concluding
| paragraph of the Masticks' brief, which is
| as follows:
This case, we understand, is somehow
| governed by the provision that municipal
| charters are subject to and controlled by
general laws. That has no application to
this case because the act of 1866 is not
either in form or in substance. any part of
the charter of San Francisco. 1t does not
purport 10 be an amendment or addition
| to the consolidation act nor is the subject
with which it deals a matter of municipal
government at ALL The act simply pro-
vldes what fees shall be paid by litigants
in the courts of the State and in actions
prosecuted within a certain locality.
That locality might or might not be a
! municipal corporation without in any way
affecting that act. 1t is precisely like the
laws which prohibit the selling of liquors
within certain distance OF the
State University and certain other
places Therefore the section of the
constitution referred to- has no
bearing on the question. We submit:
That the act OF 1895 must be considered as
| esta blishing general rule as to fees-to
be paid in the State generally-subject,
/ however, to the exception previously and
validity created by the act of 1866. There
fore the act of 1866 is now in force, and
regulates the fees of County Clerk in San
| Francisco.
| There is another question involved, how
ever. The fee bill of 1895 is ent tiled IAN
| act to establish the fees of county, town
ship and other officers, and of jurors and
witnesses in this State" Under this
| the question again arises, Is San Francisco,
so tar as legislative acts go, city or a
county? If San Francisco is u county, in
which this fee bill can be applied, the
county government act, which provides
for the election of officers for four wears,
will apply here. II this is a city the county
government act does not apply. So it is
with Mr.. Young's position as School Su
! perintendent-he must depend for his
place, as does the Election Commission
| for It's existence, on what the courts shall
| decide this 0ual oOynrpnapt RI he