Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1912-10-03
der advisement.

der advisement.
The answer Of the intervenor to the
complaint as filed by Spofford and
filed with the court It sets forth, as
was argued. that Spofford is a men,
Der of the Republican party and
acknowledged SO and that therefore he
was not the proper party to make the
complaint because he had no part in
either the circulation of the petitions
or the Progressive party movement
and the courts have held that those
objecting to a ticket being certified
to, must be those who are directly in
terested in that ticket, who have taken
part in the movement behind It and
the name OF which may tend to con-
fuse them. The answer sets forth
the position assumed by tho Progress
sive party. 1t Is as follows:
Plaintiff Not Member Progressive
Party.
The intervenor. J. H. Gibson, on be-
half OF himself and tho signers to the
petition designated In plaintiffs COM
plant as Exhibit A." for answer to
the complaint herein says:
That intervenor 10 a qualified cleo
tor OF the state Of Idaho and one Of
the signers OF the said certificate Of
nomination by electors attached to said
complaint as Exhibit A."
Intervenor says that the plaintiff is
member of the Republican party and
that said party nominated a state
ticket at the general primary election
held in the state OF Idaho on the Goth
day Of July. 1912, which said ticket has
been duly certified to the secretary
of state Of the state of Idaho, and
that said plaintiff is not affiliated in
any way with the so-called "Progres-
sive party Of the state of Idaho, and
was not delegate to and did not at
tend the said meeting held at the City
of st. Anthony, Idaho, on the 30th day
OF July. 1912. and did not sign the said
electors petition attached to said COM
plant as Exhibit A."
Not Convention at 81. Anthony.
Intervenor denies that on July 80,
1912. an organization of electors not
governed by the terms Of an act enact
ed by the legislature of the state of
Idaho which is set forth in the laws of
1909. at page 1875. held In convention
In the city Of st. Anthony, state of
Idaho: denies that delegates were
present at such convention to the
number OF fifty (50) or at all; denies
that said pretended convention was
called by any organization of the cleo
tors OF the State Of Idaho; alleges that
neither on the said s0th day Of July,
1912, nor II any time prior thereto did
any political organization exist In the
a 70 nj do Hn L.
gressive party" except as hereinafter
admitted; denies that any primary
election was called or held for the
purpose of electing delegates to said
convention; denies that prior to the
holding Of said convention any COM
mittee or officers OF any political
party. or organization Of electors, ap-
portioned the number OF delegates
which each county or any county in
the state was entitled to send to said
pretended convention, or fixed any
time or place for the holding Of pri-
mary election to elect delegates
thereto; that said assembly was not
a convention but was a mass meeting
Of individual citizens Of the state of
Idaho principally from the section of
the state adjacent to said st. An
thony, Idaho. comprising not to exceed
nine counties. and that a majority of
the persons present and participant
ing In said meeting were citizens Of
Fremont county. Idaho.
Ticket by Petition.
That the officers OF said meeting
mentioned In paragraph III hereof did
not certify the name OF any candidates
for office az the nominees or Of the
said meeting or OF the Progressive
party" Of Idaho. to the secretary OF
state. Of Idaho. and that the time for
certifying the same has expired.
lntervenor alleges. that shortly prior
to Sept. ~. 1912, more than six hun
dred 5000 duly qualified electors Of
the state Of Idaho. duly and properly
signed the certain petition for the
certification Of nomination by electors
Of certain candidates for pubic office
in the state Of Idaho under the desig-
nation Of Electors Progressive party"