Western Kansas world., 1893-10-21

ties, Is supreme.
Abundant authority is found, not
only in the dissenting opinion, but
through all the books, that on general
principles each house must be the judge
of the qualifications of its membership,
but nowhere is it found in decision OF
dictum of any respectable law writer,
that body of men, never elected to the
Office of legislators, can assemble in hos
tility and contravention to the rights of
those who were elected and create a
house or Legislative body as against
the authority of the majority Of those
who were clothed with Legislative author
ity by the people at the polls. After a
house is lawfully organized, then it be-
comes body supreme within the scope
of its legislative function, but until it is
so lawfully organized it is mere aggre-
cation OF individuals without any legis-
lative authority whatever.
The majority of the supreme court
says that the question whether one or
the other of two bodies is the proper
house of representatives is judicial one,
under the circumstances of the Gum
case, and that it is the duty of the court,
when a person is deprived of his liberty
by one of these bodies, to determine
which one is the legal and constitutional
body. We're it otherwise, body of less
than majority Of the elected members
of the legislature could deprive citizen
of his liberty, subject him to indignity,
and wasting expense, without any re-
dress whatever.
The supreme court holds, and beyond
all question correctly, that the governor
and the executive department, within
their sphere of action, are supreme; that
the Legislative department, within it's
sphere, is supreme; and that the judicial
department is likewise, within its sphere,
supreme, but that the power to decide
whether the Legislative department has
become such by due organization must
reside somewhere, and that place can
only be in the judiciary. Were the con-
tention of the dissenting opinion true,
then, at any time, one branch of the leg
islative department, and the executive
of the state, could create
senate or house at their will. Thus,
the voice of the people would be COM
pletely trampled under foot by the will
of one man in the executive department
and twenty-one in the senate chamber.
Does anybody believe that our institu-
tions are laid on any such feeble and
trembling foundation as that?
1t being perfectly clear to my mind
that the Douglass house was lawfully
constituted body, and the Dunsmore
house was not, then the action of Colo
mel Hughes in refusing to obey COM
mand of the governor to remove the
Douglass house from its hall by violence,
if necessary, was surely justified. If
Douglass, and the members of the
house that recognized him, were lawful
ly in the hall of representatives, no pow
er on earth could Justly deprive them of
their seats and of their right to keep
their places.
Military force can only be used in
aid of law, not to subvert and destroy it.
The sword can be turned to sustain
rights, not to cut them down. The bull
let and the bayonet may be used against
those who are subverting the law, but
not against those who are in the lawful
of their constitutional duties.
Suppose that Col. Hughes had ordered
his men to deeds of bloodshed, is it pos
sible that he would not have been held
liable for such results as might
have followed? If Douglass and the
members Of that house were lawfully
there, they had right to maintain the
position by resort to every means within
their power and the force brought to
bear against them would be in the wrong
while they would be clearly in the right. |
1t is happy circumstance that wiser
and better counsel prevailed and to that |
end the state owes a great deal to the
moderate men among the populists and
the almost unanimous sentiment among
the democrats of the state Had men / |
knew, members of the democratic party
who, to use their own language, slowed
Kansas before they did their party"
been lead away by the strange theory |
IudI lilo governor anu Gn0 senate
could make house of representatives |
out of any body they pleased, no one
can tell what dire events would have re-
suited in our state. In common with |
those who love Kansas it must be sub
ject of general rejoicing that modera-
ton at last took possession of the coun-
sells of the executive department and of |
the senate and that the law was not |
trampled under foot.
One case, State ex rel VS.. Smith, A |
Ohio State, 34S, was cited both in argu-
ment in the senate, at the bar of the su-
preme court, and in the dissenting opin-
ion as fully sustaining not the acts of |
the minority of the members elected in
trying to organize house, but in show
ing that it was wrong that nobody could |
redress. No where does the dissenting |
opinion even intimate that Dunsmore |
was chosen speaker by a majority of the
elected members. In one breath the
opinion seems to intimate that il Glad
stone and Bismarck had been so elected |
they could not participate in the organ
ization of the house, that is, such ac-
ton would be illegal. yet in the next |
Il