The San Francisco call., 1909-06-08
EARLY DECISION.
IS PROMISED ON
DIRECT PRIMARY
Argument Made in Favor of and
Against the New Election
Measure
Chief Justice Beatty Says He
Will Have Matter Decided
by June 2S
By GEORGE NAN sMITH

4he fate OF the direct primary cleo
tion law will be definitely determined
on or before June 2s. That was the
promise Of the supreme court of cali
fornia, made by Chief Justice Beatty
yesterday at the conclusion Of argu-
ments on the san Francisco election
commissioners demurrer TO the peti-
tion Of the socialist party and Attor-
ney Frank P. Deering, friend of the
court" seeking to wipe out the direct
nominating system and reinstate the
delegate convention.
The rather brief arguments of the
opposing counsel in the case. which
holds at more vital relation to the
civic. rights Of the people than any
submitted to the supreme court Of
California in decade. were completed
md the case submitted to the court
within little more than tv-o hours.
Thomas V Gator. president of the
san Francisco election commission.
prepared the brief and made the argu-
ment in behalf of the validity of the
law. Former Judge John E. Davis.
one OF the committee which drew the
Wright bill. and Jesse Steinhart. as
sistant city attorney. who assisted in
the preparation of the brief. were in
court. but Judge Davis did not appear
as OF counsel.
The attacking forces were repre-
sented by r. NJ. Royce OF counsel for
the socialist party and Frank P. Deer
ing. friend OF the court" attorney
for the client OF mystery. dubbed
Taxpayer" The hearing attracted
an audience which nearly filed the
courtroom and included several promi-
nent politicians, most Of whom, how
ever. were lawyers.
Garret McEnerney, who had a case
on the calendar, kept his seat at the
counseIs table. an interested listener
10 the arguments Theodore Bell,
leader Of the new democracy: Election
Commissioner Hugh McIsaacs. local
head Of the independence league: Civil
Service Commissioner Matt Brady. and
Registrar Harry Zemansky were
among the politicians present.
NOT WITHOUT HUMOR
The arguments and court proceed
lngs- serious in their import were not
without their humor. Deering friend
Of the court" lost not a little of his
careful pOise and something of his
temper when Royce. representing the
socialists. declared coldly that the So
cialists did not join in the attack on
the title OF the act made by Deering
for his dark lantern client
Francis J. Sullivan. late democrat.
brother in law OF James D. Phelan and
present candidate for union labor nomi-
nation for mayor, also added an enliv-
ening touch. There were some fea-
lures OF the direct primary election law
which did not appeal to Sullivan He
wanted 10 cut in and told the court that
he desired TO file a brief. Gator said
he had no objection to going into a
stipulated statement OF facts to ac-
cOmmOdate Sullivan. but suggested to
the court that in the school Of the law
where he had studied no method had
been taught for the introduction Of ex-
traneous matter on the interposition Of
2 demurrer to a petition. The court
had evidently studied the same kind of
law. for IL agreed with Gator. Sullivan
then announced that If he could not go
into matter not included in the petition
he would file brief touching matters
in the petition and that he would have
his brief forthcoming on the morrow
Sullivan did not like either the petition
reouirements Of the direct primary law
or the constructions placed upon those
particular requirements by the election
commission.
VOLUMTNOUS BRIEFS
Chief Justice Beatty reversed the
usual order in hearings in demurrer by
directing that the forces attacking the
law be heard first The case was sub
nlitted on voluminous briefs and nei-
1her Of the arguments in support of the
petition covered fully the matters set
up in the briefs. r NJ Royce, who had
81 no time made any mystery about
whom he represented, told the court
that the socialist party had attacked
the validity Of direct primary election
laws in six states. He also admitted
by inference that the only success that
had attended those attacks in other
states was the striking out Of the re-
quiremept OF filing fees In three states
Royce was quick &c inform the court
that the socialists did not share in the
views OF the friend of the court
touching the invalidity Of the title. His
rst announcement OF this fact did not
lperceptibly ruf7le the friend of the
court" but it's repetition a little later
got 8 rise out OF Deering that would
have done credit to a goateed parsonage
connected with the Herrin state cen
tfai committee, whom some persons are
unkind enough to suspect as the al
legged taxpayer DeDlnO DeerlnS-
Royce contended that the direct pri-
mary law was invalid because he said
ST did not comply with the terms Of
the constitutional amendment under
which IL was enacted. He argued that
the constitutional provision ratified by
the people in 1908 made direct pri-
mary system an exclusive method of
nominating. while the direct primary
act did not provide for direct nominal
tions at primary elections to the exclu-
sion Of all other methods and for all
Offices. He insisted that il was not a
general law because it did not provide
for q means by which the elector who
belongs TO no political party could Sc
cure q blank ballot and vote for whom
he pleased at a primary nominating
convention.
DEERING ATTACKS THE LAW
Deering. friend Of the court" who
is suspected Of representing everything
from Lydia Pinkham" Stone to the
United Railroads. presented an argu-
ment the logic OF which was that the
whole law was bad and that it must
fsIi in its entirety. He insisted that
the law was all wrong because it did
not assume TO interfere with or abro
cate the snecfaI nominating provisions