The San Francisco call., 1896-10-07
IN THE SUPREME
COURTS HANDS
The Case of D. L Farms
worth Against Regis
trar Hinton.
Garret McEnerney Opposes the
Granting of Writ of
Mandamus.
A. RUFF FOR PETITIONER.
The Legislative Act Defining What
Is Legal Convention Exten-
sivelY Debated.
A. RUFF FOR PETITIONER

lot of the regular Republican party.
The petitioners counsel were A. Ruef,
A Barnard, w. T. Baggett, A. w. Nor
genstern ard Q. H. Forbes.
The defendant was represented by Gar
ret McEnerney. ]. Alva Watt, Thomas D.
Riordan and John NJ. Chretien.
Originally, this matter was brought up
by ]. B. Brown, the Senatorial candidate
put up by Mahoney and his associates,
and the attitude of the court in this case
will decide both at one sitting as we'll as
any future move on the same lines.
The lengthy petition of plaintiff filed
several days ago as answered by Garret
McEnerney, counsel for the Board of Elec-
tion Commissioners. in behalf of Registrar
Hinton.
Attorney J. Alva Watt, in few concise
expressions, placed before the court the
denials of the defense to the allegations
made by the plaintiff. He spoke princl-
paliy of the undisputed right conceded to
the County Committee since 1892 until
1894 and TO the present organization to call
for the conventions through which were
made the legislative nominees.
The contention of the plaintiff that the
Kelly -Mahoney faction had held joint
convention of the Fourth and Fifth Con-
gressional districts was untenabla, and II
only the Fourth Congressional District
was represented it represented but frac-
tional portion of the City and County of
San Francisco, and the entire fabric must
fall to the ground.
Ruef argued that the joint convention
was simply one of the Fourth Congress
sional District and of all the Assem- bly,
districts encompassed by the boundaries
OF the City and County of San Francisco.
He added that the particular point he
y. hn Il nj lnft ha
right of Registrar, who is but minis
tenal officer, 10 refuse to receive and file
properly certified list of nominations.
stif the petitions are properly formed
the Registrar should accept and file them.
In case such as this the province of ac-
ceptance or rejection should lie in the
hands of the party, at the polls and both
tickets should be presented to them for
their suffrage.
~ deny the power of the County Com
mittee to give set of nominees TO the
party at large to vote upon.
"a political party can only be one which
at the last election polled 3 per cent vote.
The primary held by the faction here rep
resented polIed 10000 votes. Is it then to
be contended that at the regular election
the County Com mittee with its handful
of men is the Republican party, or is the
organization to be represented by these
10, 000 voters?"
Attorney Ruef stated further that if it
was accepted that the County Committee
represented the Republican party the
former could at any time throw over the
latter for the benefit of some other party
regardless of the objection of the greater
number of Republican voters.
1.-THE only thing that gives the County
Committee power" added Ruef, s'is the
acquiesence of the Republican electors
there is nothing IN the law recognizing
the supremacy OF the State or County
Committees.
Il contend that any Republicans of
this City may organize among themselves
and repudiate the County Committee"
you ere then rather antagonistic to the
stand you take in the Fourth Congress
sional District Convention, are you not p
asked the Chief Justice.
NO." answered Ruef. I'VE explain our
right as q body of Republicans to repre-
sent the party as well as has the County
Committee.
their tickets, but we claim an equal right
which is refused US by the Registrar.
II understand that the other side trusts
to the decision rendered by this court
some years ago in the Dolan case. 1 take
it that the decision was given because the
plaintiffs s side had assumed to appropri-
ate the name of party already in exist
ence."
''How would the voter know whether he
is voting for party principles If you put SO
many tickets In the field ?"
The Republican principles would be
voted anyhow, because all nominees
would be of that party, no matter the in
dividual.
1.-THE election law is unconstitutional
according to my idea. There is no wav to
regulate the 3 per cent required at one
ell fn anti -
the ticket at the next. In this case of the
Democratic-Populist fusion, for instance,
how will it be possible to tell at the next
elections after this which percentage each
party received? Hence, If each cannot
hold convention, the politics of the
country must remain as monopoly In
the hands of the old parties"
Garret McEnerney said: "In regard to
the question in these proceedings of
whether or not the Registrar, as judicial
or ministerial officer, has done or failed to
do his duty according to law, it appears
from the act passed by the Legislature
that only one list of nominees is entitled
to recognition or else there would be no
necessity for regularly organized conven-
tions according to law, and properly GER
tilted ticket of nominees on file.
1.-THE petitioners in this case do not saw
they are the Republican party, but they
state they claim TO be. They do not denv
our right to represent the Republican
party, but they hope to share with us in
the feast. 1t is just like the infringer who
offers to grant to the rightful owner OF q
patent share of his rightfui belongings
"lf the petitioners deem they are wrong
fully dealt by they should find redress
within the party or cease to be partisans.
1.-The court has no jurisdiction by writ
of mandate to compel the Secretary of
State to do an act which it is not his duty
to do, and there is no way to remedy the
matter.
''If this court cannot see its way clear to
decide which of the'two claimants to the
title is entitled to it, it must leave the Pc
titioners where they were picked up. The
petitioners do not deny the right OF the
regularly organized body of Republicans
according to custom and authority, to file
its certificate. but they step in when pro-
ceedings are brought calculated to disin-
faor 70 4 fb<ar ,orfsv