The San Francisco call., 1906-10-23
INCUMBENTS HAVE
NO PLACE ON
TICKET.
Non-Partisan Judicial Party
Is Recognized by the
State Supreme Court
COSGRIFF APPEAL
FAVORABLY HEARD
Alleged Effort to Knock
Out Voting Machines
and Restore Old Ballot

SPECIAL DISPATCH TO THE CALL
Los ANGELES, Oct. zz.-ThrOugh the
action of the Supreme Court today the
nOn-partisan judicial party of San
Francisco viii have a place on the OH
ciaI ballot, while the same right is de-
MED 10 tae judicial incumbents' party,
This viii add but one ticket 10 the bal
lot and win permit of the use of the
voting machines.
The court considered ten petitions for
wrfts of mandate 10 compel the Reg
fstrar OF san Francisco TO give the
two parties named places on the bal
lot.
The writ ISSUED was applied for by
Z. H. COsgrif of the governing COM
mittee of the nOn-partisan judicial
party, while J. F. Sullivan, of similar
committee of the judicial fncumbents'
party, was the applicant for the writ
that was denied the Board of Election
Commissioners of San Francisco and G.
p. Adams, Registrar of Voters.
Cosgrin alleged that on October Is
he tried TO file the certificate of NOM
ination Of James T. Coney, william P.
LswIor, Thomas f Graham and John
A. Hosmer as candidates for Superior
Judges. and Of Charles L Weller, Daniel
O'Brien. Matthew B. Racly. John J.
Vanos and Isador Golden for Justices
Of the Peace.
Cosgrin alleged that he went to the
Office OF the Registrar late, after hav-
ing been told by deputy that the
Office would be open after the regular
hour He was unable TO ind a deputy
70 register the certificate and upon re-
turning the next morning was told that
II was too late TO file the certificate.
Similar allegations were made by Sui
Iivan fer the incumbents. party certih-
Gates.
IN their answer the respondents, aft
er setting forth that the certificates
were offered too late to be fled, state
that six Of the seven columns for
party nominations have been taken,
leaving but one available.
They contended that the purpose in
fIing the two additional certificates
was 10 force the abandonment of the
voting machines and the return to the
old Australian ballot system. They
charged that the two parties acted in
coIlusion to this end and were man
aged by the same men,
Another charge was that both GER
signed by per cent Of the registered
voters. were signed by practically the
same persons. thus making one or the
other petition void
II was alleged further that no warn
ing was given OF the intent to file
the certificates and that the intent was
10 force the abandonment of the vot-
ing machines.
To show the impossibility Of going
back TO the ballot form of voting, the
respondents cited the fact that only
one-third as many precincts and voting
places are necessary with the use Of
the machines as under the old sys-
ten; that a change from the machines
would necessitate the rearrangement
Of the afidavits of $4,000 voters and
the engagement of 1000 additional
election officers.
Eighteen tons OF type, it was stated.
are being used in preparation for the
use Of the machines. and this expense
and all work would be for naught If the
use OF the machines were to be dis
pensed with. While the court granted
the writ to Cosgrif and denied it to
Sullivan. the grounds for its action will
not be known until they are put in
written form.