The San Francisco call., 1896-01-21
The NEW PRIMARY LAW,
Argument Before the Supreme
Court on the Validity of
the Act.
A BROAD RULING HOPED FOR.
Attorney Alexander Asks That the
Law Be Upheld With Section
26 Stricken Out.

! The constitutionality of the new pri-
mary election law must soon be deter
mined now. 1t was argued yesterday be-
fore the Supreme Court in bank at consid-
cradle length by ]. Charles Jones, Assist
ant District Attorney of Sacramento, D.
e. Alexander, representing the petitioner,
and Samuel NJ. Shortridge, who appeared
as amicus curie, and argued chiefly that
1t was desirable for the court to make its
decision SO broad as to preclude the neces-
slty of reopening of the case for the
other counties interested.
The question was brought before the
court by the application of W. A. Gett Jr.
OF Sacramento for writ of mandate COM
pelling the Board of Supervisors to carry
out the provisions of the new law, which
provides for a primary election on the
second Tuesday of next March.
All of the Justices were present yester-
day morning with the exception of Jack
son Temple, and during the progress of
the argument which lasted until noon, a
good many lawyers and officials interested
in the question dropped in to listen The
argument was opened by Mr.. Jones,
who, on behalf of the Sacramento
Supervisors, demurred to the applica-
ton, claiming that the law is unconsti-
tutionai in that it attempts special legisla-
ton In regard 10 elections. Mr.. Jones
argued that the law Is local in its char
acter and that it applies to only certain
classes of counties. He claimed the law
was an attempt by the Legislature by in
direction to eyade the inhibitory provi-
sions of the constitution. Mr.. Jones
argued further that section 1905 of the
Political Code was repealed by the county
government act in its classification of
counties. He called the attention of the
court to what he considered well-estab-
lished fact that the classification of muni-
clpalitles was by virtue of a separate and
very broad section of the constitution and
claimed that county was not a municipal
corporation as referred to by the constitu-
ton, and that the classification permitted
for one kind of legislation could not be
made the basis for q different kind of
legislation.
Attorney Alexander next addressed the
court. He argued that the code section was
not repealed either by the constitution or
the law subsequently passed, because the
subsequent classification of counties was
only for the purpose offixing the compensa-
He contended that the law was nor special
legislation, because it applied alike to
! people included in the classification, and
that the elections referred to in the consti-
tuition were then known as general cleo
tions for county and State officers, and
could not apply to primary elections. The
constitution, he said, could only refer to
| elections which were then general elections
| IN 6 legal sense.
He contended that the constitution did
| not prohibit other classification by the
Legislature than that fixing salaries and
| that the Legislature must have referred to
/ the Political Code in fixing this classifica-
| ton, because the lawmakers must have
known that they were making classiica-
| ton for other purposes than the compen-
sation of officials.
In concluding, Mr.. Alexander suggested
that If the court should hold the restrict
! ing provision IN the act to be unconstitu-
tional that section might be eliminated
| from the law and the remainder of the law
| be held valid.
| Whereupon Justice Van Fleet asked how
the court was to know that the Legislature
| would have passed the act If thus mutt
| lated.
| Mr.. Alexander admitted the inability of
finite mortals to solve such problem, and
then concluded his argument by a brief
resume OF the points already contended
| for.
Samuel M. Shortridge then arose and
asked the indulgence of the court He ap-
citizens OF San Fran cisco, he SAID,
as well as a friend of the court. In
his opening remarks he expressed the
hope that the court would consider the
question in all its bearings and make its
decision so broad that the counties of San
Francisco and Los Angeles should have
| guidance for their course in the vexed
! question.
Touching the merits of the disputed law
itself Mr.. Shortridge said it must be con-
| ceded that the act relates to legal elections.
Now, there was constitutional prohibit
ton against special election laws, he said
and it was clear in both language and in
tent that this law was special and local
! enactment, applicable only to certain and
! special localities. And if this law which
affects the privilege of the franchise is
special and local in its application, it
must surely be unconstitutional.
1t was evidently the intention of the
! trainers of the law to draft a general
enactment, declared Mr.. Shortridge, for
! the day upon which these primary cleo
tons were to be held was declared a State
| holiday And the language of the law, up
I till section 70 was reached where the limi-
! tation to the three counties occurs was
clearly general and was intended to be So
| Its very language pointed to the fact, he
| thought, that section 26 was injected into
the act after the whole act had been
drafted.
Again, in bestowing upon the Boards of
Supervisors the power to distinguish and
! pass upon the political complexion of
electors, the Legislature clearly trans
cended it's power and attempted to confer
a most unwarranted authority.
| Mr.. Shortridge also called attention to
the clause which provides for the different
colored ballots, claiming that this was
| Iola al @f fha nj
quirement of secrecy in elections. In
! fact the whole act was not in
harmony with the spirit of the con-
stitution nor with this form of gov
ernment, either democratic or repub-
lican, either in its generic or its special
sense Its effect would be, said Mr.. Short
ridge, to destroy the political individual
| ity of men and their liberty of action as
well as the organization of political parties,
which were a necessity under this form of
popular government.
II submit that the law should not be al
/