The San Francisco call., 1898-10-01

course, a full ticket of Populists, and
 mat ii there was to be any fusion or
 joint action with other parties, it was
 only to be the action prescribed by
 the executive committee and put
 forth as part of the call for the con-
 vention.
 As to this, it is enough to say that
 aacGioesrdlng to universal party usage in
 CanIornla, the central or executive committee or party has no function
 after one election Is over, except to preserve the organization and take the necessary preliminary steps for the assembling of the next convention.
 IL has no right to forestall or in any manner limit or curtail the powers of eo9veOfioe ene eofniVention nth which 1t calls The depositary of all party power, ana so continues until 1t adjourns, after which a new committee comes into power for the mere purpose of sub serving the party interests pending the election, and of doing thereafter such things as may be provisionally peeeissaiTy ne cess aiSr to keep up the regular or tion. It is, therefore, of no conse- quence what resolutions the executive comm1ttee chose to couple with it's call TOT the People's party Convention. They were merely advisory, and as adVis- CTS were worth just what the conven- ton chose to rate them at.
 This case is not like the Michigan eases upon which the respondent re- I ple's convention did not adjourn, and Its members unite with other conVen- t1ons in the formation of new con- vention whereby it's identity would have been destroyed It continued it's session by itself and by itself nomI- mated full ticket as a Populist ticKet. It proceeded regularly, and its action cannot be questioned, because it nomi- mated men who were not Populists and made bargain by which some who were not Populists were to retire in licans. It may be true that the result IS the same as it would have been if the three conventions had fused.
 But the result is not what the bal lot law is concerned with. What, it ticket, but ticket certified by the chairman and secretary of a regular Popq@nst @ convention. The character the subject of inquiry for the Secre- tary of State. but only for the voters There Is wide difference between a fusion convention and a fusion ticket. fusion convention represents no par ticular party. A fusion ticket may represent several particular parties, but IS none the less entitled to a place on the official ballot for that reason. Sev- eral conventions holding separate ses- sions do not lose their identity by se- lectfng the same set of nominees. The effect may be to cause difficulty at the next election from the impossibility of ascertaining the vote of the respect I've parties, but that Is a difficulty to be dealt with when we come to it. For the present we have no doubt that the certificate presented by Hutchi- son and Gregory is the one that should have been fled and. consequently, that the other certificate presented by Fowler and Johnson should have been rejected. The same observations apply to the of nominations of district officers and members of Congress. It is ordered that a peremptory writ of mandate issue as prayed.
 BEATTY. c. J. We concur: Garoutte, J.. Harrison, J.; Temple. J.; Van Fleet, J.; McFar-