People's voice. [volume] (Wellington, Sumner County, Kansas) 1890-1917, 1893-03-03
REPUBLICANS WIN.
Decision Of the Supreme Court in
the Gum Case.
The Douglass House Held to BE Legal
BOdy-Opinion BY Chief Justice Hor-
ton-Justice Allen Dissents From
the Majority of the Court.



court Saturday, Chief Justice Hor-
ton rendering the decision, Justice
Johnson concurring and Justice Allen,
pOpulist, dissenting, sustained the
Douglass or republican house as the
legal and constitutional house of repre-
sentatives of the Kansas legislature,
and incidentally declared that the acts
Of the Dunsmore or populist house had
no standing in law. The opinion of
the chief justice occupied an hour and
forty minutes in delivery and fully ex.
hausted the subject
The chief justice stated that no writ
ten opinion had yet been prepared and
then briefly stated the history of the
case.
The question at issue, the chief JUS
tice continued. was whether the Doug
lass house of representatives had legal
authority to arrest Gum. If there was
one house only the duty of the court
would be easy and plain, but it APP
peared from the respective journals
that there were two houses claiming
the Eight to legislats. He then went
briefly into the way legislative bodies
are organized and cited McCray on
election to show that the proper per
sons TO organize house were those
holding certificates, and, in support
McCray, read passages from Cushing's
manual The supreme court of Ne
braSka, no longer ago than January l.
of this year, had taken that view of the
question. In support of this theory, he
declared, the scenes lately witnessed in
the Kansas capital fully justified such
a rule. In the main, he said, it was
undertaken to ignore the statute in
making returns of the election of a
legislature and riot and violence re-
suited
In the case now before the court, the
chief justice continued, no showing had
been attempted that there was fraud
or bad faith on the part of the state
board of canvassers. There had been
presented a revised journal" of the
DunSmore house, evidently carefully
prepared, and yet that journal day
after day seemed to recognize that only
members holding certificates had au-
thority to act. For several days it set
forth that fifty-eight members respond
ed to roll call and others were counted
in as present but not voting in order to
make quorum, the other members of
the house characterized as contestants.
This record was kept up until the con-
testants were formally taken in by
vote of the house. Then the journal
showed that the Dunsmore house ac-
cepted the precedents laid down in the
books as correct
Much was said about the Reed house,
the court went on, in support of the
practice OF counting in members, but
the Reed house had one of its own rules
formally adopted upon which to base
the speakers ruling. The Dunsmore
house had adopted no such rule. More
than five persons who were counted in
by the Dunsmore house had never rec
ognized it as such, but were carrying
on house of their own. Speaker Reed
never counted in any persons who had
not recognized him as speaker Now
there could be no question that the
Douglass house was organized by the
votes of sixty-four members who held
certificates
1t was claimed, the justice went on,
that there were some irregularities in
the organization Of the Douglass house
because it did not receive the roll of
membership from the secretary of state,
but it had duplicate of that roll. The
secretary of states failure to lay before
the house a roll could not prevent an
organization.
1t was urged, Mr.. Horton declared,
that the court could not interfere in
the controversy between the rival
bodies, but the supreme court could not
pass by question because it was an
unpleasant one. 1t had no more
right to decline the exercise of
jurisdiction than to assume a
jurisdiction that was not given to
it 1t was claimed that the Douglass
house was destroyed when the senate
and governor recognized the Dunsmore
house. If that was the law the gov
ernor and senate two years ago might
have destroyed the populist house and
created republican house. And two
years hence, and so on through future
history, other Legislative bodies might
be overturned to accomplish partisan
ends If the Douglass house had vol
UNFAIRLY dissolved when the governor
and senate recognized the rival body,
the question of de facto government
would have been a strong force in the
case, but it did not dissolve and it was
still in existence.
In the course of his remarks the chief
justice incidentally Endorsed the opin-
ion of Judge Hazen in the injunction
case against State Treasurer Biddle.
In conclusion, the chief justice said
the Douglass house was the lawful
house of representatives and in his
views on the subject he announced that
Mr.. Justice Johnston fully conceded
and concurred.
Mr.. Justice Allen then delivered
dissenting opinion in which he held
that the supreme court had no jurisdic-
ton of the case and as the Dunsmore
house had been recognized by the gov
ernor and senate it was de facto or
ganization and its acts were good in
law.
Planning Mil Burned.
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn, Feb 27.-The
I destruction of the rlanino mill Of tha