The herald., 1898-09-30
LOU BROWNS NERVE
FUSIONISTS TO FIGHT THE CASE
IN SUPREME COURT
PREcEDENTs FOR THE UNION
Senator White Exposes the Catorean
Conspiracy-The Court Taxes the
Case on Submission

When the fusion case was called IN the
supreme court, San Francisco. Wednes-
dav. saws the Chronicle. Garret McEnerney
asked that there be given an hour and
ouarter to each side, and announced wncn
this was agreed to that he would open with
forty minutes, Judge BrfdgeIoru wouio
occupy twenty-five minutes and senator
White would close with ten minutes.
Under this provision McEnerney began
his presentation by recating the calling OF
the Populist convention and the events
leading up to the split in the convention
He told OF the vote on the nomination TOT
governor, which followed the conference
on fusion. The notice for the meeting OF
those opposed to fusion, he said, was given
only by a notice from the platform, and
that no other call was issued. After re-
viewing the meetings Of the two conven-
tions McEnerney read the conclusion OF
Secretary of State Browns decision. which
he said meant that there was no longer
a Democratic party or Peoples party
He then read the section OF the politlcai
code which prescribes that no delegate
may vote for more than one candidate for
any nomination.
McEnerney then took the stand that un-
der the Australian ballot law political par
ties must be considered as uninoorporated
bodies similar to religious Dodies'
and read many decision to show
that the courts had held repeat
edly that the decision Of the majority
Of the governing body must always bind
the members. He said the convention OF
party must be regarded as the govern
ing body Of party. Taking up the opfn-
ion Of Brown. McEnerney showed that the
Michigan supreme court, one Of whose
opinions was cited by Brown, had decided
that the Democratic party lost its name
when 1t took half the delegates to con-
vention where the Populists and Silver Re-
publicans divided the other hak Of the
delegates McEnerney then showed from
an Indian decision that the supreme court
Of that state had decided that the election
commissioners could not exercise judicial
functions.
T. v. Gator then took up the Brown side
and first attacked the contention that
there was no notice Of the middle-of- the
road convention. He declared that the
delegates were only trustees Of the party
and that they had no right under the call
to agree to a fusion plan except where
there should be a union convention Of the
fusion parties and common platform
written. The nomination of Mcguire, he
said, was tho first step toward carrying
out a fusion plan which had been agreed
upon, but was held back SO that Mcguire
could be nominated: He argued, there
fore, that the nomination of Mcguire by
the Populists was in reality the voting
upon the fusion scheme. He continued
that nominations upon the fusion resolu-
tion were not bona fide nominations, and
that had the Democratic convention failed
to nominate Mcguire then he would have
been compelled to resign from the Populist
ticket. He took the ground that the dele
gates lost their identity as Peoples party
representatives when they mingled with
others, and that the straight Populists
then became the only trustees In attend
once, and had the authority to vote the en-
tire allotment to their counties, which gave
to the boilers a strength Of 1856 votes. more
than q majority. He went deeper into
the Michigan case, and. reading state
ment from the decision used by McEner-
ney, said that the court held that tho
Democracy was not entitled to the party
name as the delegates did not retain the
power to name the ticket alone. He said
the fusion agreement was subterfuge,
and that the moment the delegates agreed
to the fusion bargain they ceased to rep
resent the Peoples party. He maintained
that there should be petition to bring
Mcguire upon the ticket a. there was no
right n the fuaionists 70 the name Of Peo-