The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-09-25
Judge Murasky Holds That He
Is Barred From Union
Labor Nomination
Neither Is He, Under the Law,
Entitled to Recount OF
Democratic Vote
By Inference the Courts Ruling
Applies Also to Heney's
Candidacy
By GEORGE A. VAN SMITH


By GEORGE A. VAN SMITH
q UsTAINING the demurrer inter-
posed on behalf of Francis J,
- Heney. Superior Judge Murasky
rendered yesterday an oral decision
which. besides denying Charles NJ.
Fickerts right TO a recount of the
democratic ballot, denies his right to
the nomination voted him by union
| labor electors. wipes out the doodle dee
ticket, deprives John McDougald of the
| democratic nomination for treasurer
and Thomas T. Boyle of the union
| labor nomination for auditor.
BY analogy the decision rendered
by Judge Murasky win also deprive
Francis j. Heney of the democratic
nomination for district attorney, but
Judge Murasky declared yesterday aft
ernoon that he had not decided that
question and that it had not been be-
fore him.
To Hasten Appeal
| The election commission will meet
at IL o'clock this morning to devise
methods of getting all the questions
involved in the decision before the SUI
preme court and adjudicated before
| October ?. when the official ballot for
| the general election will go to print
the last day allowed by law for
changes of any kind in the ballot.
Fickert's attorneys secured the usual
| FIVE days for amendment of complaint
after the decision was rendered.
Amendment of their alleged complaint
would do their client no good. and
| Fickert himself had not decided late
yesterday afternoon that he would
! take an appeal.
] Having secured from Judge Murasky
statement TO the effect that he had
not decided that Heney was not
entitled TO the democratic nomination.
Matt l. Sullivan was Indifferent about
the question of appeal. The election
! commission, considering only it's re-
lation to the law. and desiring to Sc
cure settlement of the manifold ques-
tions raised by Murasky's decision
/
question of appeal by Fickert.
| Quite apart from the consideration
OF a technical or court victory for
Heney and his lawyers. who refused
to admit that the paper filed by the
| opposing barristers was valid COM
| plant. Judge Murasky's decision was
of small significance. in that il
promises supreme court decision sus-
tanning the contention that the supreme
court meant what it said when it de-
cided the primary law test case.
Against Plural Nomination
| All the logic of the decision of the
supreme court in the case of socialist
party versus Uhl was consonant with
the more than obvious intent of the
legislature and against plural partisan
nominations. Judge Murasky decided
yesterday that the supreme court
meant to convey the ordinary meaning
of the language it used in the test
! case decision. If the supreme court
sustains that view of it's own decision.
tent Of the republican majority in the
legislature will be the law. in spite of
the score or more of unofficial con
structions placed upon it by politicians
/ Although Judge Murasky said sub
/ sequent TO the delivery of his decision
that he had not decided the questions
of Heney's eligibility to the democratic
nomination for district attorney. the
/ terms of his decision conveyed no con-
trary idea to the lawyers Interested
except Matt /. Sullivan. Sullivan CON
tended that since Heney was not a
candidate for the nomination of his
| own party or within the meaning of the
act candidate for any partisan nomi-
nation he did not fall within the inhi-
/ billions laid down By Judge Murasky.
| Here is Judge Muraskys decision
rendered orally yesterday morning to
the attorneys in the case:
| Gentlemen. / have called you to-
gether in this matter this morning be-
cause I have not had time to elaborate
in writing the conclusions that 1 have
reached in the matter before me. IL
seems to me that. following the con-
struction given to the primary election
act by the supreme court In the case
of socialist party versus Uhl. the IN
tention of the legislature was to COM
pei electors to confine their activities
at the primary to the various parties.
and that an elect0r of one party has
no right under the statute to vote for
an elector who is not member Of his
party, whether the name of that elector
| be printed on the ballot or written
thereon. II follows that the petitioner
here, Mr.. Fickert. can not be sustained
| in this contest; that the demurrer Of
the respondent must be sustained
The law is very Imperfect and I had
a great deal of difficulty in constituting
many Of its provisions. owing TO Tho