The San Francisco call., 1909-06-29
COURT'SFR|END'
GETS SLAM IN
BIG DECISION
Frank Deering Not Mentioned
in Opinion but Is
Ignored
Exhaustive Discussion of the
Law by the Supreme
Tribunal


the last days of the legislative session.
The language Of that portion of the
decision touching the title and the ad-
visory vote on United States senators
leaves no room for doubt that failure to
adopt the advisory plan would have
resulted in the rejection Of the law.
After the general Importance of the
decision as a whole sustaining the law,
its most interesting and locally import
ant feature is that sustaining its parti-
san character.
The court goes at length into the
question Of prohibiting the printing Of
a candidates name on the ballot Of
more than one party. and expressly
rules that no candidate may have his
name printed on the official ballot Of
a party with which he did not affiliate
and vote, If he voted at all. at the last
general election.
In this particular. and this alone. Jus
tice Angellotti dissented from the
OpiBion Of the court. He held that il
was beyond the power Of the legisla-
ture 70 prohibit the nomination Of
member of one party by the electors
Of another and that since the electors
Of one party could write the name Of a
candidate Of another party on his bal
lot there could be no good reason for
prohibiting the printing of such name
on the ballot Of a party other than that
with which tie candidate was affiliated.
The majority opinion was based on
the provisions Of amended section 2lS
Of article Of the constitution. which
gives the legislature the power to
prescribe the tests and conditions gov
erning participation in primary cleo
tions. The court holds that since the
constitution takes from the parties
the right Of prOtectson it was incum-
bent upon the legislature TO insure
the integrity Of parties, and that it
was as essential 10 protect parties from
candidates not in sympathy with its
tenets and committed to its policies
as II was 10 protect them from cleo
tors belonging TO other parties. who.
under existing law, We're restricted to
voting the primary tickets of the par
ties OF the sworn choice
The court rejected briefly the con-
tenriOn that the fling fees were uncon-
stitutional as providing a property
qualification 10 the right. to hold Office
The fees We're held not to be a prop
erty qualification and wholly constitu-
uOnal. since they We're reasonable as to
amounts.
The question of ineligibility of
candidate defeated at primary cleo
ton 10 independent nomination for the
same Office at the ensuing general cleo
ton was not passed upon. The court
said that it would be sufficient to pass
upon that when the question was
raised directly and. that in any event
y did not run to the life of the law.
The. opinion fraugbt with such vital
importance TO all the people of Call
fofnia Is not without humor in its
sPphcation rather than its phraseology.
Deering, yfriend of the court and
Francis ]. Sullivan, candidate for union
labor nomination for mayor, and un-
happy here Of the only slugging fest
Of the campaign, furnished the motif
for the fun Of the decision.
The court declined to wipe out the
charters OF II freehOlder cities for
Deering, and without referring to Sui
liVan by name, declined to pass upon
his objections to The provisions of the
Paw, disnfissing them as unworthy of
consideration.
Deering friend Of the court" at
tackled the law from title to date.
The legal representatives Of the social !
Isl party, who were as much in the
dark as was the public about the iden-
tity OF Deering's client, got a rise out
Of the friend Of the court" bv in
sistent declarations before the court
that the socialist did not join in the
attack on the title. Deering. friend
OF the court" insisted that the direct
because
the title referred 10 United States SEN
ators. According to the lights of
Deering candidates for the United
states senate were not candidates for
PUBLIC Office.
The supreme court was unable to |
follow the friend OF the court to that
length. IT was of opinion that candf- /
dates for the United States senate /
were candidates for public office. and /
mat while the people had no right to
elect them, the legislature undoubtedly /
mad the authority 10 give the people /
IN advisory vote in the matter Of their 1
selection.
Deering, friend Of the court also
contended that the law must fali be-
cause IL expressly excepted from its
provisions the nomination OF candi- /
oates Tor municipal Offices in those mu-
inequalities having special methods pro-
vided by their charters
Deering asked the court to reverse
ITSELF and declare that municipal cleo
tons were not municipal matters and
that charter law was not paramount To
general law. The court declined to re-
verse itself Despite Deering. "friend
OF the court" the charters of San Diego.
Los Angeles, Fresno. San Jose and
Berkeley are still intact
The decision written by Justice Lori
gan is one Of the most exhaustive de-
cisions ever handed down in a direct
primary case, and there have been
like IS test cases decided IN
the p direct primary states. All the
questions that could run TO the life
Of the law have been passed upon. The
direct primary law and its application
are now in the hands Of the people
Eastern critics have agreed that the
California direct primary law is the
best direct nomipations law vet en-
acted- It is comprehensive. It is genu-
Inc direct primary-no more no less.
With THE sustaining decision Of the
supreme court The Calls fight for the
people is won. IT remains for the peo-
pie 10 make the same good use Of their
direct primary law that the people of
other states have made Of inferior
ststutes.
TEXT OF DECISION
Following is the full text Of the de-
cision OF the supreme court. sitting
IN bank, as to the direct primary law:
June.
Bank
Socialist party "a political party and
Henry hagelstein. as chairman Of the county
committee, representing said party in the
city ana county Of San Francisco. petitioner
vs. Thomas Uhl Thomas V. Gator Charles
0iloea, Hugh McIsaec and n. O. Weinholz