Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1893-03-02
REPUBLICANS UPHELD.
Tho X ans q suprsms Court sus-
talns tho Dou class 10 iso
opiiio ~ Chler' Jus,rc n rtp', wh,ch is
toncarrod H. uy Ja.tico ) .haston--
Juttics allen ais,sn,s rcom tho
NaIority of the onrt

court Saturday, Chief justice llor
ton rendering the decision. Justice
Johnson concurriug and Justice Allen,
pcpulist, dissenting, sustained The
Douglass or pub'ican house as the
legal aud constitutional house of repre-.
seutativcs. Of the KANSAS legislature,
and incidentally declared that the acts
Of the Dunsmorc or populist house had
no standing In law The opinion Of
the chief Justice occupied an hour and
forty minutes in delivery aud fully ex-
hnusted 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 ut issue, the chief JUS
tice continued. was whether the Doug
lass house Of representatives bad legal
authority to arrest Gum. II there was
one house only the duty OF the court
would be easy and plain, but II APP
penrcd from the respective journals
that there were two houses claiming
the right to lcgis'ats. lie then won't
briefly into the way Legislative bodies
are organized and cited McCray on
election to show that the proper per-
sons 90 organize house were those
holding certificates, and, in support Of
McCray. read passages from Cushing's
manual The supreme court of Me-
bratlSa, no longer ago than January II
Of this year, had taken that view of tho
question. In support OF this theory, no
declared, the scenes lately witnessed in
the Kansas capital fully justified such
q rule. In the main, he said. IL was
undertaken 20 ignore the statute in
making returns OF the election of
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 vet that journal day
after day seemed to recognize that only
members holding certificates had au-
thority TO act 'or several days 1t set
forth that fifty-eiC 1T members respond
cd TO roll call an others were counted
In as present but OF voting in order 10
make u quorum, the other members Of
the house characterized as contestants.
| This record was kept up until the con-
testants were formally taken in by a
| vote OF the house. Then the journal
showed that the Dunsmore house ac-
cepted the precedents laid down in the
boolSs as correct.
Much was said about the Reed house,
/ N1a.sa In ~ hss
| practice OF counting in members, but
the Reed house had ono Of its own rules
formally adopted upon which to base
the speakers ruling. The Dunsmorc
house had adopted no such rule. More
than five persons who were counted Ia
by the Dunsmoro house had never rec
ognizcd II as such. but werc carrying
on n 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 tho
| Douglass house was organized by the
votes OF sixty-four members who held
certificates
II was claimed, the justice went on,
that there were some irregularities in
the organization Of the Douglass house
]
membership from the secretary OF state,
but It had duplicate Of that roll. The
secretary OF states failure 10 lay before
the house a roll could not prevent an
organization.
II 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 n question because IL was an
unpleasant one. II had no more
| right to decline the exercise OF
a jurisdiction than 10 assume a
| jurisdiction that was not given to
IT, II was claimed that the Douglass
house was destroyed when the senate
and governor recognized the Dunsmore
house. IL that was the law the gov.
ernor and senate two years ago might
have destroyed the populist house aud
created a republican house. Aud two
years hence, and so on through future
history, other legislative bodies might
be overturned 20 accomplish partisan
ends II the Douglass house had vol
ntarily 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 II did not dissolve and II was
still In existence.
In the course OF his remarks the chief
justice incidentally indorsed the opin-
ion Of Judge lIazen in the injunction
case against State Treasurer Riddle.
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 a
dissenting opinion in which he held
that the supreme court had no jurissic-
tion OF che case and as the Dunsmore
house had been recognized by the gov
ernor ana senate II was de facto or.
ganizatlon and It's acts were good ia