The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1897-11-24
VERY IMPORTANT
Shall the Peoples Party Candidates
Go on the Omcial Ticket Of Right
or by PetitiOn:-RepOrt of the
Committee ON the Subject.

1--WE call the attention of the Populists of
the state to the following very important
communication. We shall follow the matter
up.-Ed. Rep)
TO the Peoples Party State Central Com
mittee Hon. F. c. Gibbs, Chairman, Hon.
E. r. Lynch, Secretary:
Gentlemen-Your committee appointed to
examine the law relating to public elections
in this state and determine the standing of
the Peoples Party as a political organiza-
ton at the present time under the law of
1893 and laws amendatOry thereto. have in
VestSated the questions submitted to them
to the best of their ability and hereby sub
NIT their conclusions
We take it for granted that the only seri-
Gus question which called upon to
answer is as to the construction and appli-
cation of section 81 of chapter of the laws
OF 1893 which provides follows: 1.-The as
sembly or convention of delegates, within
the meaning Of this act, is an organized as
semblage of delegates representing po-
litical party, which at the last general
election before the holding of such conven-
ton or asemb!age polled at least one per
cent Of the entire vote in the state, or
county OF other division district for
which the nomination is made"
Section 80 of Chapter 4 of laws of 1893
permits the use Of three words with which
and by which the certificate of nomination
shall designate or describe the party or DO
Htical principle represented by the nominee
this is the only limitation prescribed by
law, as to the name names of any politi-
cal party, and any political party using not
more than the prescribed number of words
to express name or certify itself upon the
ticket is clearly within the law in that re-
spect and therefore has a valid legal name
1t is claimed by some that there was a
fusion of the Peoples and Democratic
parties for the purposes of the campaign Of
1896, and that both parties lost their legal
identity and separate existence thereby
While we do not think fusion" would have
such an effect under the law to destroy
the parties to it, we deny that in this
state any fusion occurred The word
fusion is enormously used to denote the
act of Endorsement of Populist and Demo-
cratic candidates, by the conventions held
separately by each of said parties. There
certainly seems to be very little sense in
using the word in that connection. The
word fusion as defined by Webster Is Ito
| be melted. to be reduced from solid to a
! fluid state by heat and it seems peculiarly
| inappropriate to express the idea sought
| to be conveyed. 1t has heretofore for many
| years been a frequent practice of the Re-
| publican and Democratic parties to indorse
| each others candidates, especially for the
judiciary, yet it was never suggested in
| this state that such action had the effect OF
changing in any way the political status Of
| either of said parties and if the word
Iuslon should be appropriately used in
| the sense Of the word merger" it is not
feadlly seen how or why the adoption of
| either part of the principles or candidates
| by any political party by another so long
| as each retained it's separate name and
| organization could operate in any wav as
| a merger.
| 1t is a matter of common knowledge that
| the Peoples party held delegate conyen-
| lions throl ghout the state and nation in
| the year 1896 and it's nominations were at
| that time, properly made by such conyen-
! tlons' and its candidates properly certified
| TO the various officers in charge of the pre-
paratIon OF the ballots required by law
An OF ITS candidates in this state obtained
| thelr places upon the ballots by such GER
tincates and as the candidates of such
| party 1t is also a matter of common
hlo"ieose that most of these candidates
were alSo nominated by another political
party ana the certificates Of their nominal
| tlon by such other party were also duIv
| i!ieo ana the fact noted upon the ballot NV
| the resignation Of the candidate as "Peo.
! PIE . democrat We believe it to be a
TACT IN every instance where the candidate
was understood to have been peculiarly
t the nominee or the Peoples party that in
the designation on the ballot the word
| feople s. appeared first. 1t was also tho
understanding of all officials having in
! charge the preparation of the ballots that
tne nrst certificate filed determined the DO
sltlon of the designating words .Peonle,s
| Democrat" and "Democrat-Peonle,s" mo-,
the ballot. Most of our candidates. if not
all or them, were designated in one Of these
two modes. 1t was the common sense nm
Outstanding of all officials that the first
certlncate MED controlled the matter Of
designation. We are of opinion that this
was correct. That the Peoples party was
at tnat time separate and distinct DO
| H'lcal organization Under the law there is
! no question. That it had polled at least.
| one per cent of the entire vote cast in the
l
| doubt We believe that the party did not
| eXtlngu1sh its Independent existence nor
| did 1T lose its right under the law Of 1899
to have its candidates for office, if properly
nominated, placed upon the various state
! county and municipal ballots by cerri-
| fcate. If 1T did. then under that law the
| HE or political party must continue to be
| in constant danger Of extinction upon pure-
~ technical grounds and the purpose of the
! law to protect the voter would be shame
| fully defeated.
The Peoples party filed it's certificate Of
! nomination separately and with no regard
! to what other parties in the state had
done If subsequently, or even before
| some other political party had caused GER
! tifcates to be filed certifying the same
| names of candidates, and the same candi-
dates, why should that affect the independ-
| ent existence of the Peoples party? Sup
! pose the Republican party had met in a
properly constituted and legal convention
| Of delegates. and suppose they had nomi-
mated their candidates and had caused their
| certificates of nomination to be duly filed
| as required by law; suppose that SUBJ
sequently the Prohibition party casting a
! small and inconseuuential vote in this
| state, met in a delegate convention and
nominated for the several Offices the same
| man who had been nominated by the Re-
! publican party, and thereafter caused
| their certificate to be filed as required by
| law. Would that operate as an extinction
| of the legal entity of the Republican
party? If so, then such party can as well
be extinguished by petition as by delegate
| convention of the Prohibition party and it
| Is only necessary, In order to effect that
result, for any minor organization to get
| Its own peculiar and distinct name added
| to that of the party which nominated the
! candidate. to destroy the right of the party
| to place on the ballot. We do not believe
| that any such absurdity was intended by
| the legislature, and in our opinion it would
| require forced construction to give such
an effect to the statute. We think there
! fore, that the vote cast for candidates who
were designated upon the ballots as "Peo-
| ple-DemOcrat" is properly attributed to
| the Peoples party, and that such was the
| vote which the Peoples party cast in the
! last election 1t is impossible, of course to
| tell how many of these votes were attract
| ed to the Peoples party by the addition of
| the word Democrat to the word "Peo-
| ple's. Neither do we think that such
| could or should be subject of judicial in
Quiry. By a parity Of reasoning the Dem
| ocratic party is in the same predicament