The advocate and Topeka tribune., 1893-03-08

mitted jurisdiction, and In such cases,
the courts viii not inquire into
the title OF such members TO their seats
The courts In such cases Will so no further
than to inq"ire as to lie legal sratus ana
the authority &C the LUdy as u whole; but
whore there are two bodies, each claiming
to be the legislature, then The court whose
duty 1t iS to respect and execute the acts OF
such legislature must OF necessity decide
which Is the legislature.
"Then again: Under the constitution
Of Maine, the legislature could proponnd
questions to the supreme court OF that
state, and in certain case they did pro-
pound questions, and this 10 what the
supreme court OF Maine said:
When different bodies OF mon, each
Claiming to be and to exercise the functions
Dr the legislative department OF the state
appear, each asserting their title TO be re.
ERrded as the law .glverS for the people, 10
lB the obvious duty OF the judicial depart.
ment, which must inevitably at no distant
day take up the question aud pass upon the
validity OF che laws that may be enacted by
the respective claimants TO legislative
authority, to inquire and ascertain
questions presented by the claim.
ants. which OF them lawfully
represent the people from whom they de-
rive their power. There can be but one
lawful legislature, and the court must
know for itself whose enActments it will
recognize as laws OF binding force, when
brought Judicially be. ore It, In a thousand
ways IL becomes essential that the coure
should forthwith ascertain and take 1u6io-
lal coRnizAnce OF the question, (which 10
the true leglslatureF
snow, in the list Maine, 10 oass CON-
Cerning an office-not upon ques-
tlonB submitted, but upon
ease concerning an office which
was brought before the court in the reg.
nlar way, the court repeats the Identical
language used in the advice given upon
the former occasion.
1t has been said that there are some
views the other way, and a case from
Pennsylvania is cited, and case from
Georgia is cited. In the Pennsylvania
case, the exact question as to the divlg-
lon OF the legislature was not before the
court II the court intended to say In
that case that an injunction should not
be granted against the supreme l0GislR-
bure, this court would readily concur
with il. If it intended to go further than
that, this court then calls the alton
tion OF counsel to the fact that upon
political questions, as they are denomi-
hated in Pennsylvania and Georgia, this
court has heretofore differed from the
courts Of those states.
"But again: 1t is claimed that
the Dunsmore House has be-
come de facto House by
the recognition from the Senate,
the governor, the executive officers, and
o4k I NJ IN
House known ns tho Dupsmore House
had full and unlimited possession OF the
hall OF representatives and the rival
party had ceased its existence, the ques-
tion OF dc faclo legislature would have
strong force in this case. There often
comes q time in the conduct OF all
bodies and officers, when on account Of
public interests, Irregularities and even
wrongs are cured. But here
10 O valid and constitution
al House attempting to carry on
business. Every day OF it's session, 80
far as it's journals show, the Douglass
House challenged the rightfulness Of the
Dunsmore House; it challenged the
action OF the governor; it challenged the
action of the state Senate, and the very
first aot Of the Senate and the Duns-
more House was seized upon by court
of this state and throttled out it's very
existence. Although that order was
made by the district court Of Shawnee
county, until it s reversed or vacated
by proper proceedings in this
court, it is es valid and bind
ing between the parties as the
order OF the supreme court OF the state.
Not only that, but the court must take
knowledge Of all the usual and ordinary
incidents which are transacted around
it, and it is unnecessary TO say that the
challenge has been 80 successful that
various bodies have divided upon this