People's voice. [volume] (Wellington, Sumner County, Kansas) 1890-1917, 1893-03-03

the practice Tor generation IN Kansas. Here
let me say, tnat while there mas Oeel
much discussion about what fraudulent
canyassing boards might do, and what
frauds canvassing boards might commit,
there has not been presented ia this
case any evidence showing that the re-
turns Of election on file in the Office OF
the secretary of state could have been
canvassed in any way other than they
were canyassed by the state canvassinr
board. There have been other cases in
this court, growing out Of certificates
and in all the cases presented to this
court, there has been no showing Of bad
faith, or fraudulent action, or Of i'm
proper conduct on the part of any one
Of the canvassIng boards. In
one case, it appeared that Joseph Rosen.
thai had been found elected by
the board Of canyassers in Haskell
county. That board stated that
it could not meet again
and canvass tie latter or the subsequent
return. This court, in accordance with
all the authorities, sustained the state
board Of canyassers in their action and il
any one had the right to complain of
that decision it was Joseph Rosenthal.
And yet, Joseph Rosenthal, after he had
heard hedecision Of this court delivered.
presented 10 the chief justice OF this
court a letter, stating that he was
convinced that the decision Of this court
was not only the law, bat that it ought
to be the law, and that he respected
the court for its decision in
that case. There has been pre-
scented here what is known as the re-
vlsed journal or the Dunsmore
House. l Judge that the journal
has been carefully prepared, and that it
is attempted to fully state what &C.
Cured according to the views Of the par
ties, or OF the House under whose order
it was prepared and which has approved
it, and yet the journal day after day
seems to recognize that only certified
members have the authority to act. Let
me read. "The call OF the roll Was re-
ceived from the secretary Of state,
and the following members were
present and answered to their
names, and it gives the names OF 50.
The following members were present
and did not respond to the call Of the
roll 81. Then it says, total number of
members present, liz, being more than
constitutional quorum. Therefore, this
journal of that place only counts the
members who appear upon the roll of
the secretary of state. 1t says the num-
Der was ll5, 80 voting, answering the
call, and 81 not answering the call
1t then states the following
named contestants for seats were
present, but does not include them
in the quorum or in the number Of 1l5.
I saws they number ten.
OO say uOl UuIy w Vu0 auUnurlLies,
parliamentary and legislative. sustain
the theory that the persons having cer-
tlflcates are the ones to organize, not
only does the practice, and the usage
prevailing IN Kansas since the orpaniza-
ton and admission as a state sustain
that rule, but the newly prepared
journal OF the Dunsmore House recoo.
nlzes this and states, not that
the contestants were voting, not that
the contestants appeared for the Dur.
pose OF being counted, but it excludes
them all the way through, until after
they were admitted by the elections
committee, and itcounts only those who
answered to the roll call, and then
counts some that did not answer.
I'm this connection, in the journal q,
The Dunsmore house, it states how MANY
persons were present and answered 10
the roll call, and then states how many
persons we're present who did not
answer, and the quorum is made uD-
now! BY this journal itself, and am
not speaking from outside or
oral evidence, quorum is made up in
That House-how? By counting the
persons who answered to the roll call.
mat is RICH T. sometimes ffty-fye,
sometimes tittY-seven and sometimes
htty-eigbt, and then by counting in adj.
dltlon, as the journal says, persons upon
the roll who we're present but did not
vote Can this be done?
Now, if the
douglass House WIS organized on the
10Th OF January, and was in session on
the 18th day OF January, before either
House had been recognized, why was
not that House at that time the popu.
list organized House; The consti-
tuition says that the legislature
shall consist Of a House OF Representa-
tlves and a Senate. On the 10th the
governor had not recognized the Duns-
more House; on the llth the governo
had not recognized the Dunsmorer
House; neither had the Senate recog
nlzed either of the Houses; neither ha d
the governor recognized either House
Now, the point l desire to make
is this, and it seems to me conclusive
and unauswerable-tnat if the Doug
lass House uron the 10th and 18th
days of January had a constitutional
majority Of the certified members. then
during those two days it was the
valid House, it was the legal
House, 1t was the constitutional House
and had the right to do all those
things necessary, outside Of legislative
matters, for the purpose OF protection,
for the purpose of preventing disturb
ance, for the purpose Of purging itself Of
illegal members. II had the right then
to punish parties for contempt, il they
disobeyed It's orders.
At this point it is urged with great
ability and zeal that this court has no
jurisdiction to pass upon the question of
The legality of these two Houses-as it
appears there we're two alleged Houses.
Its right to do 60 is denied
Oy the petitioner and by the
able counsel who represent the
petition and the Governor. As
was said by Chief Justice Marshall in
Cohens VS.. Virginia, it is most true.
that tniO court will not take Jurisdiction
II 1t should not; but il is equally true