The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1893-10-27

and elsewhere. These opinions, con-
-sidering their source, cannot fail to be
binding on all fair-minded men. Mr..
Hoch's article is as follows:
The Gum Case.
simultaneously with the arrest of
Ben c. Rich. and for the same peaceful
purpose, an order was issued for the
arrest of Mr.. L. c. Gum, prominent
business man of Parsons, who had re-
fused to appear as a witness in con-
test case before the elections committee
of the legal house. Mr.. Gum submit
ted gracefully to the arrest, and at
once, through able attorneys, COM
menced original habeas corpus proceed
ings in the supreme court to test the
right of the Douglass house to restrain
him of his liberty or punish him for
contempt. Many questions of law were
involved in the case, but they all cir
-cled around the one great question of
jurisdiction of the court.
1t was stubbornly cOntended by coun-
sci for the governor and the defendant
that the three coordinate branches of
the government-the judicial eXecu-
tive and legislative-are supreme in
their spheres. and that therefore one
of these branches. the judicial, had no
constitutional power or right to decide
as to the legality of the methods by
which either of the others came into eX-
istence But the absurdity was pre-
scented of the same counsel contending
that two of these sovereign powers
the governor and senate-could wipe
out another equally sovereign power
the houSe-by mere recognition,
and install in its stead, if they desired,
another sovereign house composed of
hoodlums-this last sovereign house,
of course, to follow their logic. being
subject to humiliation by the same
within of recognition" by powers after
all only equal to the one wiped out,
And so on adj intinitum, Great idea of
coordinate sovereignty, this! Let Inc
suggest that it is poor rule of logic.
here, that won't work at least three
WAYS. Why. under this brilliant rea-
soning, shouldn't the governor and
house annihilate the senate when they
want to? And why shouldn't the two
houses, if displeased with the governor.
Just quietly get rid of him by ''recog-
nizing" some other fellow? And if this
logic is law, then the people need only
elect two of these three coordinate
branches. and they will do the rest,
Mr.. Gum, a private citizen, was re-
strained of one of the dearest things in
this world-liberty-by a body claim
ing to be house of representatives. If
the claim was true, he was rightfullv
restrained. If false, it was an outrage
upon him and upon society. which owes
every citizen protection. Who but the
courts could inquire into the case and
do the citizen justice? Certainly the
governor and senate could not ''recog-
nize" him into freedom. The courts.
alone, could come to his relief, or else
he might have been kept prisoner I'M
til he died Of old age, and that. too, by
an organization which might have no
right to restrain him single moment
But if the court, in order to ascertain
whether or not the citizen Is deprived
of his liberty by an organiza ton hav-
ing such legal power over his person,
must first ascertain whether or not the
organization is what it claims to be,
how must this fact be aScertained?
The populist lawyers said: Consult
the governor and senate" This, in
their view. was the only way to ascer-
tain whether or not it was a house.
Counsel on the other side, however,
had higher and better view of sover-
cigntv-the sovereignty not of gov
errors nor of partisan senates,
hut the sovereignty of law.
This is the sovereignty which
is above all the coordinate branches
of the government, and upon
which they all depend for continued
existence. To this sovereignty-th
law-the republicans appealed, as they
ALWAYS do. Was what is known as the
Douglass house, and it alone, organized
according to law? That was the ques-
ton In one of the fairest, clearest
and ablest opinions ever handed down
by court in this country. Chief Justice
Horton. with the concurrence of Mr..
Justice Johnston, decided in favor of
the Douglass house. That decision is
good law and good sense. And it is
Justice. Theorists who believe that
the people are above law" and that
they are the people, may criticise this
Just decision, and anarchists who are
opposed to all law may denounce it,
but when the passions and pre- udices
of the hour are mellowed by time, and
reason is again enthroned, every
thoughtful and candid man will say in
his heart of hearts to Judge Horton,
well DONE TO prove that this is not
merely my estimate of the opinion
(Which may confess would be of little
value), let me ask you to read the fol-
lowing letters from gentlemen eminent
as e>pounders of law.
,.ldge ID. J. Brewer, of the supreme
r. art of the United States, wrote:
WAsHINGToN. May 20, 1893
NV Dear Sir: 1 have intended to write to
YOU ever since I received that magnificent opin-
ion Of YOURS but nv time Las been very closely
occupied with the work nave had 10 do
II any other doctrine tnan that you demon
strate should ever obtain in this country, it
would be good bye to government BY law
Yours sincerely, d. j. BREWER
That eminent authority, Judge
Cooley, whose books are standard, says:
AM ARBoR, Mich, March IL, 1895.
Hon A II. Heron:
Ny Dear S;r: Wewere all greatly interested.
of course, in the question that was submitted
10 the supreme court Of Kansas involving the
legitimacy of the rival organization claiming 10
be the lower house Of the legislature OF that
state and especially in the legal and constitu-
tional points that must have been embraced in
that question but have never seen these
stated specifically anywhere, or in any report
of the decision made by the court, except mere
ly the genera; result The opinion Of the court
is understood TO have been delivered by you,
s and. as Learn, was given at the time orally,
but was TO be written out afterwards. Whether
IL
was or If the legal points were in any form put
in writing, attd published, I should be very glad