The advocate., 1894-08-15
POOR PICKERING.
He Has Exposed His Ignorance All the Suf-
frage Amendment Needs Is Votes.

ron August 8 Chairman Wharton Of the
prohibition state central committee gave
60 Che public o letter from |. d. Pickering,
prohibition candidate for governor, in
which he expressed the belief that the
pending equal suffrage amendment will
fail even though 1t may receive o majority
OF the votes Of the people. The reasons
given for such belief will be clear 10 Che
reader from the reply which we have OBJ
tanned from Mr.. G.. @. Clemens and which
il published herewith. Since this reply was
in type We have received from Judge w. Q.
Webb, too late for publication, another
reply covering the whole ground and arElV-
ing at the same conclusion as MIR. Clemens.
Judge Doster has also written an opinion
Of like import as has also Mr.. Nathan Cree,
the man who introduced the suffrage reSo-
luton in the democratic state convention.
Several republican lawyers have also OK
pressed like views concerning S6iB very pc
Ouliar letter. Mr.. PiCkeHing's evident de-
sire to expose some deliberate diRb0liSm
or criminal osrelessness" on the part Of
Populist officials has led him into an in
discretion the only effect Of which will be
TO expose his own ignorance. The follow
ing is the reply Of Mr.. ClemOns:l
EDITOR ADvoCATE:-There is Rbso-
lutely no merit in Mr.. Plckering's sem
sational remarks about the woman suf-
frags amendment. 1t is q little remark
able, to say the least, that while Mr..
Pickering refers twice or thrice to de-
cision OF the supreme court Of Iowa, he
is utterly silent az to the decision Of the
Kansas supreme court sustaining the
prohibitory amendment. Hal he never
heard Of that decision, or did he de-
hberstsly suppress all RllusiOn to its I
leave Mr.. Pickering and your readers to
answer. Suffice it that the very point
Ss to entering the amendment on the
journal was decided in that case and de-
cided the other way from Mr.. Picker
ing's opinion.
The first point urged in that case, ss
stated by Justice Brewer, was:
First, that the proposed amendment
was never legally submitted to the
people, inRsmuch as it does not appear
in full upon the journal" And the
opinion expressed, states; "Upon the
journal Of neither house does this
amendment appear; it is simply dss'
cribed az senate joint resolution No. B,
proposing an amendment to article Is Of
the constitution Of the state OF Kansas,
relating to the manufacture and sale OF
intoxicating liquors, by adding section
10 to said article This article Is is en-
titled miscellaneous, and nothing in it,
prior to this proposed section 10, refers
to the manufacture or sale Of intoxicat-
ing liquors"
What said the supreme court OF Kan
sas-not of Iowa concerning this omis-
sion? This is what our supreme court
said:
"The constitution provides that the
proposed amendment, together with the
yeas and nays, shall be entered on the
journal; article IA, section l. Is the
failure to enter this amendment at
length on the journals fatRlH y
Is proposition to amend the constitu'
tion in the nature Of criminal proceed
ing, in which the opponents Of change
stand ss defendants in q criminal action
entitled to avail themselves Of any tech'
nical error or mere verbal mistake; or ID
it rather q civil proceeding, in which
those omissions and errors which work
no wrong to substantial rights are to bt
disregardsd? UnhesitatinRly, we affirm
the latter. The central idea OF Kansas
law, as Of Kansas history, is that sub