The herald., 1898-09-30
LOU BROWNS NERVE
TO FIGHT THE CASE
IN SUPREME COURT
PRECEDENTs FOR THE UNION
Senator White Exposes the catorean
Conspiracy-The Court Takes 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
quarter to each side, and announced whcn
this was agreed to that he would open with
forty minutes, Judge Brtdgeford wouio
occupy twenty-five minutes and senator
White would close with ten minutes
Under this provision McEnerney began
his presentation by recating the caiing OF
the Populist convention and the events
leading up to the split In the conventloh'
He told of the vote on the NOMINATION. lot
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 ana
that no other COLL was Issued AFTER re-
viewing the meetings of the two conven-
tions McEnerney read the conclusion OF
Secretary Of State Browns decision, whicn
he said meant that there was no longer
Democratic party or Peoples party.
He then read the section or the poiltlcal
code which prescribes that no delegate
nav 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 bodies,
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
a 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
whom II took half the delegates to con-
ntion where the Populists and Silver Re-
publ,cans divided the other half 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 cal
to agree to 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 the first step toward carrying
out a fusion plan which had been agreed
unon. 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 nomination upon the fusion resolu-
ton 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
70 the boilers a strength Of 1856 votes, more
than a majority He went deeper into
the Michigan case, and, reading a state
ment from the decision used by McEner-
ney, said that the court held that the
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 as there was no
right In the fusionasts TO the nazue Of Peo-