The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-11-09
WILL THE LAW STAND
The Election Commission
Act in the Supreme
Court.
ORAL ARGUMENTS MADE.
The Fee Bill Case Before Judge
Seawell of the Superior
Court.
ITS VALIDITY IN QUESTION
How the Decision in the Cases Will
Affect the Status of San
Francisco.
ITS VALIDITY IN QUESTION

Two suits were argued yesterday, one in
the Superior Court before Judge Seawell,
the other before the Supreme Court in
bank, each with an entirely different SUBJ
ject-matter, but both tending toward
settlement of the question as to the exact
standing OF the City and County of San
Francisco.
San Francisco is to all intents and pur-
poses city, but the government is two.
fold-that of a municipal corporation, and
that of county-and the great question,
of which the cases yesterday are but
part, is whether the county legislation ap
plies to San Francisco, or if it can be
reached only by legislation for corpora
tons. In this question is included the
right o: the Board of Supervisors to APP
point Charles S. Young q Superintendent
OF Schools; the same question comes in
also to the application of the fee bills, par
tlcuiarly the last one of 1895; it appears
again in the application of the county
which provides that officers elected
shall hold office for four years;
and 1t is once more present
when, as was the case yesterday before
the Supreme Court, the existence of the
present Election Commission and the
method OF Its appointment is under dis
pute. All these measures apply to coun-
ties except, perhaps, the last but II San
francisco IS decided to be not county,
but municipal CORPORATION, they have no
force within these City limits.
The case before the Supreme Court, en-
titled Denman VS.. Broderick, is on a writ
OF mandate applied for by Denman to
compel the defendant, Auditor of the
City, to audit his salary warrant. Broder-
lex had refused to audit the demand on the
ground that the commission had not been
legally appointed, and in this way the law
itself was brought before the court. Gar
ret w. McEnerney, counsel for Broderick.
opened the argument
The act empowering the appointment of
election commissions IN cities and cities
and counties of over $50, 900 inhabitants
provides that the Mayor shall appoint two
men from each OF the leading political par
ties OF the State, the appointments to be
ratified by the State central committees of
the parties from which the commissioners
are selected. McEnerney contended that
this act is unconstitutional, ana he de-
voted an hour to explaining his position.
This act, he said, is special and local
Special because it is a law intended for
San Francisco only. San Francisco'is a
city OF the first class under the Legis lative
classification of 1888, which says that cities
OF over 100000 people shall be Of the first
class. The constitution provides that
cities can be classified for general purposes
only. Ii city be in the first class in ap-
plying the provisions of one law it must
remain In that class for the application of
ali laws. BY making the act in question
applicable to cities and counties of over
loo,OOO McEnerney claimed the bill, in eff
feet, created new class, and was special
legislation and unconstitutional
McEnerney claimed further that the act
was invalid. because it prescribed party
qualification for the Office of Election Com
missioner and that it delegates portion
OF the governmental function to the State
central committees of the leading parties
OF the State. The courts, he said, do not
recognize the different political parties and
VIII not discriminate between them, as was
shown by the decision that no party what
ever could have heading upon the ballot
as to allow only those which had polled at
least 3 per cent of the votes at the last cleo
ton would be special Legislation and I'M
Just to those which had not secured That
mum Der Of votes. In this law, he said, the
same question arose-the discrimination in
favor of the two leading parties as against
all others. Again, ne said, the act de-
mands that the Election Commissioners
be freeholders, and this jim the face of the
provision that there shall be no property
qualification for holding office.
AS to the political act prescribed, Nc
Enerny held that if the law can provide
that each Commissioner shall belong to
one OF two 1t can demand that all the
Commissioners snail belong to one party,
and II the Legislature can dictate mans
politics while! in Office it can dictate his
religion. Further, he said, the munich
patty is entitled to govern itself, and it is
not reasonable to allow any State politi-
cally partisan body to legislate on its al
falrs-a delegate from Del Norte or Colusa
county helping it to conduct its elections
Tor School Directors and Judges
NJ IN
II II be held that the partisan character OF
the board is unconstitutional, then the
whole act IS unconstitutional for its aim
Is to create bipartisan organization.
MI. Delmas Of the firm of Delmas &
SShortrldge appeared on behalf of the
board OF Election Commissioners. In
answering he said he had been notified of
but three OF the opposing counsers points.
lie would answer them, he said, and, by
permission OF the court, file briefs upon
the others. He then proceeded to argue
on the first three points introduced by
McEnerney.
He commenced his argument by citing
article OF section %, which saws that the
Legislature may not pass any special or
local laws creating any office in any
county, city and county, city, township or
school district. If it prescribe that cleo
lions IN all cities and counties shall be
according to a certain manner. or bv a GER |
tain machinery, it would not be special
because special class would be made by
the classification city and county" SO
long as the law applied to all cities and
counties this could not be special.
"a city and county, he continued, lis
twofold legislative body which differs !
from ordinary cities and from ordinary
counties. If it be not unconstitutional for |
Supervisors of a county to canvass the vot e |
If it be not unconstitutional for a Com |
mon Council to canvass the vote of the !
clty-it is then not unconstitutional and |
not special legislation TO enact that in |
cities and counties the vote shall be can
vassed by separate body. Difference in |
population is the basis of classification. |
and an election in place like San Fran |
cisco is surrounded by safeguards entirely
superhuous in the city of Gilroy-not only |
superhuous but ridiculous.
Laws relating to cities and counties in |
California. whatever their action, can be |
applied only in one place. No matter how |
many pluras there may be in the act, the |
object is single and singular. 1t would be |
if it said the act should APP
ply to all counties, cities, and the one city |
and county in the State. for there is but !
one, and the law must be tested not by |