The San Francisco call., 1896-10-10

as this" said Ruef, with deep melancholy.
! Ruef was paler than usual, and it was
apparent to the most casual observer that
he felt the blow keenly. The delegation
with him were equally depressed. They
sat in silence for awhile and then put out
the gas and went home utterly broken in
spirit.
The court took up first the case of Mac.
donald against Hinton and rendered the
following decision:
The writ should be denied. Whether Reg.
istrsr, in fling or refusing to dle q proEeTed
certificate OF nomination by convention, acts
m1nisterially or judicially, it is clear that he
cannot be commanded by mandamus to do an
act which the law does not require him to do.
Now, sections 1867 of the Political Code
clearly contemplate that political party
which at the last election polled at least per
cent of the entire vote can be represented by
only one convention. contrary view would
certainly defeat the purpose of the law. There
| fore when each of the two or more bodies
claim to be the convention contemplated by
the code the Registrar must determine in the
| first instance, at least which one of the bodies
was "an organized ssemblage of delegates
representing" the particular political party
| named.
| To say that the presentation of a certificate
in due form is conclusive of the essential fact
| upon which the alleged right rests is to an
nounce the principle that each party to con-
troversy is the exclusive judge of his own case.
| If the issue were presented here whether or
not the convention which the petitioners
| represent was the convention which in fact
| represented the Democr attic party, then this
| court would have 10 consider whether or not
it would. upon mandamus, hear evidence and,
after a trial here itself determine the essen-
| tial fact in dispute.
But this proceeding submitted upon the
admission that the convention represented by
| petitioners only claimed TO be-" but was not
a convention representing said political party,
and upon the theory that Registrar was
bound to file their certificate because 1t was in
due and regular form.
| Therefore the question whether or not this
court should, upon mandamus, inquire into
| the fact and determine whether such conven-
tion did or did not represent said political
| party is not before us.
/ 1t therefore does not appear that the
! Registrar has refused to do any act which the
law enjoins upon him as q duty. The Pc
tition for the writ of mandamus is denied and
the proceeding dismissed.
| The decisions in the cases OF Farms
worth against Hinton and Brown against
Hinton were in few words as follows:
| Upon the authority of Macdonald VS.. Hinton.
| s. +. No. 6S4 this day decided the applications
| for writs of mandamus in above cases are
denied and the proceedings dismissed, the
cases being substantially alike and having all
been considered together.
A special dissenting opinion was filed
| by Justice Garroutte in the case of Mac
donald, which is as follows:
| I dissent There are three constructions to
| be placed upon the statute: l. That the action
of the Registrar is final and conclusive. 2.
That it is the duty of the Registrar to decide
| as fact whether or not the certificate pre-
! sented to him comes from the regular and
| genuine Democratic Republican party
which it purports to represent and that such
| decision by him is renewable by this court.
g. That it is The duty of the Registrar to fill all
certificates which upon their face comply with
| the statute, and that upon rejection by him
of any such the remedy is by mandate of this
| court.
| To hold that the action of the Registrar is
final I cannot indorse for moment Every