The record-union., 1896-01-21
Is IT SPECIAL LEGISLATION ?
The Primary Election Matter Argued in
the Supreme Court.
Claim That 1t Does Not Apply to All
Counties Points Raised by Law
yers of This City.

w. A. Gets application to the Su-
preme Court for a writ of mandate COM
pelling the Board of Supervisors to
carry out the provisions Of the law
which calls for a general primary cleo
ton on the second Tuesday in July
next, was argued before the court yes
terday in San Francisco. J. Charles
Jones, Deputy District Attorney, repre-
sented the Board of Supervisors, and ..
E. Alexander appeared as counsel for
the petitioner.
Mr. Jones demurred to the application
for the writ of mandate, claiming that
the law was unconstitutional in that it
attempts special legislation in regard to
elections. Mr.. Jones argued that the
law was local in its character, and that
it applies to only certain classes of
counties. He claimed the law was an
attempt by the Legislature by indirec-
ton to evade the inhibitory provisions
of the Constitution Mr. Jones argued
further that Section 4006 of the Polit-
ical Code was repealed by the County
Government Act in it's classification of
counties.
Attorney Alexander next addressed
the court. He argued that the code was
not repealed either by the Constitution
or the law subsequently passed, be-
cause the subsequent classification of
counties was only for the purpose of
fixing the compensation of officers. and
for no other purpose.
He contended that the law was not
special legislation, because it applied
alike to people included in the classifi-
cation, and that the elections referred
to in the Constitution were then known
as general elections for county au1
State officers, and could not apply to pri-
mary elections The Constitution, he
said, could only refer to elections which
were then general elections in legal
sense.
Samuel Shortridge then asked per-
mission to address the court on behalf
of counties other than Sacramento He
appeared on behalf of the city, and in
his opening remarks he expressed the
hope that the court would consider the
question in all it's phases, so that the
city and county of San Francisco
could determine which law was the
proper one to guide its course.
The law, Mr.. Shortridge claimed, was
not a general law. Up to Section 26 it
is applicable to ali counties of Califor-
MIA, but that section limits to two
classes of counties. This being the
case, Mr.. Shortridge thought the law
was unconstitutional. Beside, the re-
quirement of a certain color of ballots,
which destroys the secrecy of the ballot
at primary elections, operated, in his
judgment, against its constitutionality.
THE interests of the people of Cali
fcrnia," said he, demand that this
primary election law should not be
sought. The trainers of the law sought
to remedy certain election abuses, but
in this law, which attacks the Consti-
tuition itself, the proper remedy is not
pointed out. We believe that if your
honors will view this question in its
broadest sense you will spare this city
and county enormous expense, as well
as Los Angeles. which has the same
interest at stake as San Francisco"
The court asked several questions of
counsel regarding their construction of
the law, and the matter was then taken
under advisement.