Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1912-10-03
CASE IS BEFORE
SUPREME COURT
FOR A DECISION
Arguments Are Presented
on Action Brought to Bar
! Progressive Ticket From
the Ballot.

(
Of Idaho will be disfranchised through
sustaining the action brought by Jud'
son Spofford, q member OF the Repub-
lican party. to keep the Progressive
party ticket on the official ballot fol
Rhe November electior4 was peaced
sQuarely before the supreme court THU
morning and was taken under advise
ment. Argument was heard in the It'll
cation OF statewide importance In the
case which bears the title of the State
Of Idaho on the relation of Judsou
Spofford versus Wilfred L. Clifford. al
secretary of state Of the State OF Ida
no. in which Spofford seeks an injunc-
ton to restrain the secretary of state
from certifying the third party ticket
down to the respective county auditors
The court stated when the case was
called Monday q decision would have to
be rendered on or before Saturday.
Justices Deeply Int 'ested.
The supreme court Astices evidenced
unusual interest in the case during the
argument. A. A. Fraser represented
the plaintiff Spofford. Attorney General
d. c. McDougall for the secretary OF
state and Harry Kessler. John j. Plow-
head and II. E. McElroy appearing as
friends Of the court and in fact defend
ing the Progressive party ticket and
contesting the petition Of the plaintif.
All three justices interrupted the argu-
ments at times, Justice Sullivan In
particular. He queried to ascertain
whether or not the contentious made
covered alleged fraudulent tickets and to
know from the attorneys acting as
friends Of the court II they contended
the st. Anthony convention had the
right to nominate state ticket. or
whether those who were active in that
convention did not father the Pro-
gressive ticket later launched.
Claim Party Existed.
Enalyzed the contention Of counsel
for Spofford as presented to the court
is that the Progressive party Is a party
of nation wide reputation as a state
party: that it was organized at Chicago
Immediately after the Republican
convention; that later 1t was extended
to idaho through the st. Anthony con-
vention where three presidential cleo
tors were nominated. q working or
ganization perfected. a national COM
chairman; that this convention was
held on July 30, the date of the pri-
mary election as provided by law; that
thereafter state committee was per-
fected with an executive committee to
supervise the management of the CAM
paign that petitions were circulated
after the St. Anthony convention had
failed to nominate state ticket, to
place such ticket in nomination and
this action was the violation of the
spirit of the primary law.
Attorney Fraser declared that IL par
ties are allowed to circulate petitions
to place state tick ct in the field there
would be no need Of holding a primary
election at all and every party would
be privileged to do this. He argued
that the act of the Progressive party
Is illegal for that reason. He declared
that II the contention of the clai moi
the progressive party Is correct the
state chairman of that party had no
right to represent himself as state
chairman and in circulating the petit
lions had misrepresented and the act
the word electors" being placed in
Actions Are Distinct.
The defense Of the Progressive party
as made through the argument Of At
torneys Harry Kessler, Plowhead and
McElroy was that tho st. Anthony
gathering was not a conventions; that
1t was mass meeting: that 1t was
but the first movement in the organic
alton OF the people who stood for the
principle involved and that while It
may have nominated a state ticket,
It Is doubtful II 1t had that power for
this power Is designated only to party
conventions. to primaries for parties
or by petition, all three Of which are
separate and distinct. Had the st.
Anthony meeting been a party con-
vention under the law. every county
in the state would have been proper
toned representation through dele
gates, appointed or elected at pri-
maries who would attend and be au-
thOrized to represent the electors Of
their respective counties. It was
claimed. Instead. the meeting was
only in the nature of a mass gather
ing to take the first steps towards
the organization Of the party: that
subsequently and following this con-
vention, petitions were properly cir
culated as required by the law, the
names Of qualified electors signed to
them and were in due course Of time
the candidates placed in nomination
by these petitions were filed with the
secretary OF state who accepted them
This act. 1t was argued. was done in
accordance with the law and with two
prior supreme court decisions OF tho
Idaho tribunal. which had previously
ruled on the question. At st. An
thony. It was pointed out. merely the
start was made. but outside Of but
comparatively few individuals the pc
titions for the Progressive party ticket
were signed by other qualified elec-
tors who did not attend the st. An
thony convention and had nothing
whatever to do with It.
opesferd Had No Rishts.
I Decisions In Montana, California
ana other state cases were cited by
counsel for both sides. A stipulation
-