The San Francisco call., 1896-10-08
THEY HES|TATED
AND TOOK RISKS
Stanislaus County's Belated
Ticket Is Under
Fire.
Arguments Were Heard by the
Supreme Court Yes
terday.
WRIT OF MANDATE SOUGHT.
The Application Is Denied-Stanislaus
Democrats Must Get on by
Petition.
WRIT OF MANDATE SOUGHT.

The Supreme Court may decide to-day
whether a writ of mandate shall issue
commanding Albert S. Dingley, County
Clerk of Stanislaus County. to file the GER
tificate of Democratic nominations in
Stanislaus County. The Justices sat yes
terday in chambers and heard the matter
argued by John E. Richards, who appeared
in opposition to the application for the
writ of mandate, and Judge A. Hewell and
C. A. Stonesifer, who appeared in behalf
of the Democratic County Committee OF
Stanislaus.
The petition set forth that P. 81. Griffin,
qualified elector of Stanislaus, presented
to Dingley a certificate of nomination to
be filed, containing the names OF all the
nominees of the Democratic County Con-
vention of Stanislaus. Dingley refused to
accept the certificate for filing. The GER
tificate was first offered October S, which
was last Monday. The day preceding was
holiday, and the clerk refused the cer-
tiicate on Monday, because that was also
legal holiday. Appended to the petition
was copy of the reasons given by county
Clerk Dingley, which were as follows:
First-The same was presented to me on the
5th day OF October, 1885, by P. 81. Griffin, and
| refused to file the same that day because 1t
was holiday and also because the same was
not presented within the time required by
law.
| Second-Said certificate of nomination was
also presented TO me for fling on the 9th day
of October, 1896, by P H. Gri fin, and l re-
| fused to file the same because 1t was not pre-
sented to me for fling within the time re-
l.quired by law.
P. II. Griffin is the chairman OF the
Democratic County Com mmiltee of Stanis..
| laus. The nominees who are concerned
| in the decision of the court are the Demo-
cratic candidate for Superior Judge and
the Democratic candidates for members
of the Board of Supervisors.
| Judge Hewell argued for the petition
| that, as it was not possible to legally fle
the certificate ON Sunday or Monday, it
must therefore be accepted and filed on
the dav next succeeding, which was Tues
day, as it was offered in good faith on
| Monday. The constitution provides that
| the certificate must be flied not less than
thirty nor more than fifty days preceding
the election. If the certificate had been
accepted on Monday. Judge Hewell con-
tended, the time limit would have been
satisfied.
| Mr.. Richards took a totally different
| view of the matter. 1t was contemplated
! legally, he said, to set apart thirty full
days before and exclusive of the day of
| election, and he found the language "day
| OF eleCtlOu TO De SlSnluCdnI. a Qdy De-
! gins, he claimed and fortified his position
with decisions on that point, Immediately
after midnight. The purpose of the thirty
day provision is to make sure that there
will be thirty days notice. If the con-
struction of counsel On the other side
should be accepted, then the time of filing
would be only twenty-eight days before
the day of the election. Such ruling
would destroy and do away with the
thirty-day provision com pletely.
| The wording mot less than thirty days
| before the day of election" entirely pre-
cludes the day upon which the election
occurs from the consideration. If the
| certificate had been accepted when it was
offered, the men who we're left off the
ticket, and he presumed that there were
such, would have only eight days to get
their names on through petition. whereas,
| the Legislature contemplated that they
should have ten days IN which to have
their names placed on record. One pur-
pose of the Legislature was to fix mini
| mum. and this minimum was thirty days;
| there is no question as to that.
| ALI the Justices of the court were pres
ent with the exception of Justice Hen
shaw. They asked many questions during
| the hearing, which took place in cham
| bers. After this the matter was taken
| under advisement. II the petition for the
writ is denied the candidates can yet get
| their names on the ticket by petition.