The San Francisco call., 1898-09-10
POPULIST VERSUS FUSIONIST
THOMAS v. GATOR TO ATTACK
 THE PINTO POPS.
Lengthy Brief in Which the Claims of the Middle-of-the-Ro -Roadsters Are Set Forth in
 Full.

to-day to decide which of the two wings of the Peoples party is entitled to the party designation on the official ballots that will be placed in the hands Of the voters of the State next November.
 The names of the nominees or the 1u- sionsts and the middle e-of-theroadsters will be presented to the Secretary at Sac ramento to-day, and at the same time representatives of the two factions will present arguments in support of their re- spective claims to the party name. The mddle-of-the-road Populists will be rep resented by Thomas " Gator, and in their behalf he has prepared lengthy brief, Of which the following is a part:
 The Secretary of State is required to deter mine if there be any reason why certificate of nomination presented should not be filed, and If to return the same with a specification in writing of the reason
 The facts show that what we call the fusion convention did not represent the Peoples party; that it abandoned the "call'' and the dele gates therein their trust by falling to nominate a Peoples party ticket. but that it on the con trary entered into compact and bargain with other parties to give up and yield up Its right to name ticket and gave the power to another convention (the Democratic) to name large portion of the ticket in consideration Of a ua.- gain that each would then support the candl- dates of the other at the ballot box. Thus the Peoples party fusion convention did not reserve and retain the right to its convention to name make the ticket.
 The final fusion ticket was not the act of a convention within the meaning or section 1lSb, Political Code. It was a mutual bargain II agreement not to nominate large DOT ton of its ticket in good faith. but to put them up as mere dummies to be taken down by resignation provided for in the fusion com pact. to make place for and give the party and support to nominees never named by it's convention. This is not such an act the code ContempateS. This is not repre- senting a political party This is q mere com pact which is not and cannot be the act of the Peoples party convention, but is the act of these conventions and their chosen committees Tn H7nl ito
 It Is the bargain-the compact to abide what ever may be the ticket which shall result from the compact by which the Peoples party (fu- sion wng) lost all power to itself to make the ticket. it should be by the execution of the final compact that constitutes an abandonment of the trust by the fusion delegates, for by this action they became a entity, mere fu- sion!sts (not themselves making the ticket, but admitting other parties to help and control in making 1t.
 In doing this they ceased to represent the party which sent them under cali ito nomi- nate candidates of said party" to wit, full complete ticket
 The 'calr' for the convention as interpreted by the usual course of political parties Is to represent their own party only, and consti- tutes the declaration of trust, upon the faith of which the party chose delegates as trus- tees, and stated the purposes of the trust. This call not only is to nominate complete ticket but to nominate candidates of said party In addition to this there is absolute neg stlve upon any fusion or union unless 1t be an amalgamation by joint conventions agreeing upon identical platform to be accepted by all candidates before any nominations made This was not done, hence the declaration of trust Is for straight party ticket. Such is the purpose of that trust.
 There never was any modification of this trust by the voters who sent delegates under 1t, nor was the breach agreed to by all the If there were any discretionary powers in the delegates as trustees they must execute them themselves They delegated their powers to other parties and agreed to abide a compact which should be the result of the compromise their powers to strangers.
 This cannot be permitted Discretionary power in the execution of a trust cannot be delegated to a stranger.
 The fusionsts in the Peoples Party Con- Tention having abandoned their trust and formed a fusion by which they became n new entity were not in that condition successors to- and they did not represent in those acts the Peopies party. They could do this indi- viduals and become fusionists. but they could not do this in the name of the People 8 Party for it was not ordered by such party. It was foreign to their trust and did not bind or carry the ensign of Peoples Party" which Is the name of the party. and belongs to the Peoples party voters who adhere to their party, and not to the fusionists
 nd The name Of of party is property of the party of the name Peoples Party to designate a ticket made up by bargain by the act of voter: The majority of the trustees having abandoned the trust and become fusionsts, can the Peoples party have the trust exc cuted and ticket of its own to vote for?
 The luSion EOpunstS can by petition take any name they their committee see fit to take that does not infringe the name ''Peo- ple's Party" If they have not yet actually wrongfully assuming the name People 8 Party" It was is their duty to take a new name because they have become flu sionists" and they In law deemed to have taken a new name. for 1t Is a maxim of law that That which ought to have been done is to be regarded as done.
 This ticket in California is everywhere com a Or m tfclra anJ tho . Is it's true name. It Is nowhere called the Peoples Party ticket such name would The delegates who joined in the fusion plan in the Peoples party convention thereby aban- Peoples Party" They became thereby new .ry entity, and as such were not successors of the Peoples party. did they then represent any political party which had cast per cent of the vote. etc.
 Under such circumstances they were not q convention at all, as defined by law. and their nominees or selections could only go on the ballot by petition. They may take such nama the name Peoples Party If they take the name Fusion Ticket Union Ticket they will correctly designate themselves. If they take the name Peoples Party they misrepre- sent and deceive On the other hand, should to its trust. be compelled to take new name. 1t would be grossly oppressive, and be mis- noneT fo,tSg, and T, compelling those who have been VII not do, and neither justice nor law will be t construed to require this. If the fusionists
 
 faithful be compelled to assume a false name then law would reward those guilty of breach or trust and would punish those who were faithful. This the law cannot do.
 These fusion compacts agreements to srn- port and endeavor to procure the election of candidates named by other parties in considera- ton that those supported will endeavor to procure the election of the persons named bv the fusion Populist delegates It Is a trading Of votes and traffic in public office against public policy. against the above express law and against honest politics, and therefore for such reason unlawful. and the fusion Populists 1t out. For the above reasons the certificate of the reorganiZed Peoples party should be filed and all use of the name Peoples Party exceni by the reorganized party rejected.
 THOMAS V. GATOR
 Attorney for Peoples Party"
 nI COT n1EDc 1on