The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-11-01
HELD No CONVENTION
DISTRICT COURT DECISION AS TO
"HY" FULLER'S INDEPENDENT
DEMOCRATIC PARTY
WANT "AD" WAS NO NOTICE

the SmaIIness of the AssembIage
Need Not Have Affected the
Validity of the Nomination, 1t is
Ruled-Appea1 to the Supreme
Court Threatened.
The case of the nominees of the al.
legged mass conventions" of Sept. 26
and Oct. 4, headed by Henry H. Fuller,
and styled Independent and Demo-
Gratis" was summarily disposed of yes
terday afternoon in the district court
by Judges Brill, Kelly and Otis. After
very brief consideration of the case
presented at Saturdays session ana
published in detail in Sundays G o b e,
the court decided unanimously that
Henry Fuller ct al. were not entitled
to a place on the regular Democratic
ticket to be voted on by the electors
Nov s.
The court held that the mass con.
Ventions' talked about by the adherents
of the Fuller party were not conven-
lions at all; that they were practically
the caucuses of a political clique.
The independent Democrats" were
greatly annoyed at this judicial ulti-
matum, and Henry Fuller ct al talked
stormily, after the verdict, about a
lightning appeal to the supreme court
The little mongre1 party is now weh
satisfied that Judge Brill, Judge Kelly
and Judge Otis do not understand the
meaning of a mass convention"
II the Fuller faction can raise the
FUNDS, 1t seems likely they will, they
say, proceed with an appeal to the su-
preme court They want to be told
again by higher authority that their
mass convention" ruse has been a
a co fn1 floN 11a
Nov. s is concerned.
Following is the text of the order
given in the case yesterday, delivered
by Judge Brill:
state, ex rel. Humphrey Barton, vs. d. NJ.
Sullivan, county auditor, etc.
Inc statute, under the Interpretation OF
the supreme court seems to contemplate two
sorts Of conventions for nominating candi-
oates to be placed upon the Official ballot;
delegated convention and a mass convent IN
The certificates in this proceeding state
that delegated convention was held 1t Is
conceded that no delegated convention was
held The only question for us to determine
is as to whether mass convention was held
Wlthln the meaning of the statute as in
terpreted by the supreme court. The supreme
court says that a mass convention or any
sort OF a convention. so long as it is
regularly organized according to the usages
of the party, is sufficient. 1t does not seem
to be essential to a mass convention that any
PARTICULAR number OF people attend it, and
yet the ordinary acceptation of the term
mass convention is a convention generally
OF the persons interested in the party, without
having delegates. The number Of people at
tending may not be controlling as to whether
convention is a mass convention or not but
II the duly accredited agents or officers of
the party issue proper call and give a
proper notice. then, although a nVention
may be attended by a very few persons, yet it
would be undoubtedly sufficient to satisfy
the requirements of the law. And it comes
down to this, in our minds, whether a sufil-
Gent notice, or call, was issued in this case
We think that there was no sufficient notice
The only notice given seems to have been q
ten-line notice in an obscure corner of a
paper, without any display line or anything
TO call the attention of people interested to
1t, on g page devoted to wants and In a
column headed popular wants. place
where probably not one peorson in thousand
who read the paper saw the notice or would
naturally see it. While it is not very easy,
perhaps, to define. in such case, just what
notice should be given, yet in a general way
II ought to be a general notice; one which
would naturally be seen by persons interested
in the subject matter, and ordinarily notices
Of that sort are given in quite a different
way. There seems to have been no notice
posted or any notice given, as we understand
1t, except the notice given in this way. And
while the fact that a few pepole attend, as
l said before, would not be controlling If
sufficient notice was given, yet the fact that
practically only the persons constituting the
committee which issued the notice were pres
ent at this meeting is a circumstance that
adds good deal of weight in considering the
question Of the suffc.ency of the notice. It
appears that although this so-called party
cast in the neighbordood of 500 votes on
the average-some of the candidates receiving
much more than that-yet only eight or ten
people attend the convention. And we think
for these reasons that the convention was
persons nominated not entitled to q
place on the official ballot.