Western Kansas world., 1893-10-21

1ul DOdY.
To the plain man there needs no argu
ment to show that the rights of sixty
seven men to organize house are supe-
rior to that of ffty-eight men; but here
the populists say that while there wat
an apparent majority of that kind, YET
in fact, it did not exist. One OF the ablest
and most plain spoken senators on the
populist side was Senator Senn, oi
Dickinson county. He is man OF rug,
ged, earnest convictions, and does not
shrink from stating them in the plainest
manner, and I believe him to be entirely
sincere. In debating the question in the
senate he frankly said in substance: 81
concede that the law is with the republi-
cans; that on the face of the records
they had a majority of all members
elected to the lower house, but the
! question, in my opinion, is greater than
mere law; it is a question of justice. i
maintain that while the records show
the republicans to have the ma jority yet,
as matter of fact, the populists had
the majority and therefore, notwith-
standing the apparent right of the re-
publicans under the records to organize
the house, yet in justice that right be-
longed to the other side" But here oc-
Cured difficulty. No one was able to
show how the populists had majority
either Of the popular vote on canvass
of that vote, or of the members actually
elected. The popular vote was against
them by from six to seven thousand and
the canvassed vote, both by the precinct
boards, the county canvassing boards
and the state board, all showed the pop
ulists had elected only tifty-eight
members.
Which, then, was the legal body, the
Douglass house, or the Dunsmore house?
A legally constituted Legislative body,
whether senate or house, has certain in
herent powers, and one of them is to ar
rest persons who are guilty of contempt
of the lawfully exercised right of the
body, and to punish such persons by
imprisonment.
The Douglass house had summoned
witness by the name of Gum to appear
before one of it's committees to give evi-
dence in matter then pending. Gum
refused to obey the subpoena, and was
thereupon arrested by the sergeant-at-
arms of the house and brought from his
home in Parsons to Topeka. IF the
Douglass house was lawful body the
arrest was right; if it was an illegal
body the arrest was wrong and Gum
improperly restrained of his liberty. The
statute and constitution of the state pro-
vide that the supreme court shall have
jurisdiction in writs of habeas corpus.
This writ, of me-honored memory, is
one of the noblest and surest safeguards
of the freedom of the citizen. Gum ap-
piled to the supreme court for this writ
of habeas corpus and it was granted,
and he was brought before that body
where the sergeant-at-arms was required
to show by what authority, by what
lawful right, he held Gum in custody.
So far there seems to be but little dis
pute between the prevailing opinion of
the supreme court and the dissenting
opinion of Justice Allen.
That I do not mistake the position of
the two, quote respectively from the
opinions of Chief Justice Horton and
Justice Allen. The prevailing opinion
says: page 1857
Therefore we have before us, neces-
sary for our determination, the question
whether the body or house which
authorized Clevenger as sergeant-at-
arms to arrest and detain Gum. had
any legal or constitutional authority SO
to do"
And on page ZIG, speaking of the
power OF the supreme court in this mat
ter, Justice Allen says:
THAT the court is authorized to in
quire into the legality of the arrest and
therefore to declare whether or not
George L. Douglass is speaker of the
house of representatives, there is no
question"
So both sides conceded that the su-
preme court had the power to declare
which was the legal body called the
house of representatives. To my mind.
the statement of these two concurring
propositions leads to the inevitable con-
clusion given by the prevailing opinion
OF the supreme court.
I cannot conceive that the court could
have the power to inquire into and de-
clare whether or not George L. Doug
lass is speaker of the house of represent
atives and yet not have the right to in
quire by what authority, by what vote,
by what body of men he was thus elect
ed. The opinion of Chief Justice Horton
places that side beyond any further
debate.
The dissenting opinion of Justice Al
len, to the effect that, while the court
has this power, yet it has it only to the
extent of ascertaining which of the two
bodies the senate and governor has rec
ognized as lawful body, is without
foundation in either reason, law or prec-
edent. In oonceding that the supreme
court could inquire which body was the
lawfully organized body, Justice Allen
insists that this inquiry is simply limit
ed to the question: "What has the SEN
ate and the governor decided on the mat
teri" Having asserted that the ju-
dietary is bound by this decision, he
r1oinfa nG 70 M ,,rov;csor, - A. o.~.x: