The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1896-10-21
should Withdraw through the national

should withdraw through the national
committee.
Mr. GODDARD then argued:
A person was never entitled to a writ
of mandamus unless it would enable
him to establish right or benefit him.
That the plaintiff had failed to show
that either would be accomplished in
this case. The same electors We're on
the ticket and could be voted for by the
voters of the state. He then went into
the question as to whether a paper filed
on Monday was filed Is days before the
election.
Judge Allen asked if a man whose
name appeared on the ballot twice
could withdraw from one ticket and
still stay on the ballot
Mr.. GODDARD said he thought he could.
Continuing Mr.. GODDARD urged that
granting a writ would appear small to
the people and bar of the state and
would seem that the court was concern
ing itself in trivial matters as every
voter could express himself at the polls
just as well whether Watson's name
appeared on the ballot or not
Judge a. III Horton contended against
granting the writ, as follows: That the
declination was fled in time That
while Watson wanted the votes of the
people of this state he did not want to
deceive voters whom he loved and re-
spected and who loved and respected
him. That for the purposes of this ar
gument all the statements of the an
sWer were taken as true. The answer
stated that the Peoples Party electors
would not vote for Watson. This
would tend to deceive voters and the
court ought not to aid in such decep-
ton The answer also said Watson
wanted TO withdraw and said it was a
fraud on the voters to allow his name
to remain. If Mr. Watson was great
enough and stood high enough in the
party to be its candidate for vice pres
ident some consideration ought to be
given to his opinion on such q matter
If q candidate Of equal rank in his par
ty should make such q statement he
would either accept his statement or
would repudiate him altogether.
Mr. G. g. Clemens in reply explained
the action of the Abilene convention IN
nominating the electors and said there
was no agreement to vote for SeWaII
That the convention had acted and they
ought to be given the right to decide
That as to MIR. WatsOn's Withdrawing
he for one objected to Mr.. Edwards act
ing as chairman Of the Populist ma
tiona1 convention.
THE M'CABE CASES.
The court then took UP the AIcCabe
cases.
The cases against County Clerk Chas
T. McCabe of Shawnee county We're
brought by Wilson Keith and Col C.
X Holiday, candidates for the IegisIa-
ture from this county, alleging that he
closed his office at four o'clock on the
afternoon of the 18th of October. which
was the last day on which nomination
papers could be fled. and that such ac-
ton on McCabe's part was done pur-
posely in order to prevent Keith and
papers
The answer of NIcCabe was to the ef-
feet that it is and has been the custom
or the county clerk when making out
the county tax roll to close the Office at
four o'clock each afternoon but that
anyone having business could gain ad-
mittance to the office by rapping on the
door Ihe answer further states that
on the 18th of October McCabe was in
the Office till six in the evening and
that neither Holiday nor Keith rapDed
on the door for admission.
When the McCabe cases were called
a. b QulntOn. who appeared for Nc
Cabe. said that he was willing to sub
init the case on afhdavits which he
had filed.
Mr. Quinton had filed the amdavits
OF Charles McCabe. John M. Wright
and Frank Ritchie, which substantial
ed the answer as given above.
The plaintiffs fled affidavits bv
George Wagner and others which state
IN substance Jnat Wagner saw McCabe
and McCabe agreed to keep his Office
fMen until o'clock- Wagner went to
the office before 5 and found the doors
locked. that he knocked on the doors
shook them and pounded around" for
ten minutes. and then was informed by
the Janitor that every one was gone
Ae then went to a telephone and called
UP McCabe's Office. and recites in detail
trying to reach him by telephone at his
house and his inability TO do so. Other
afldavlts in the Keith case recite about
the same facts.
The case was argued briefly by Mr.
Clemens and "A. B. Quinton, Quinton
claiming that no one went to the office
until after 8 o'clock. Clemens claiming
that while there was apparent conflict
in the afldavits, there was none, as the
parties could have been ia the Office !
and that they had not denied that the
telephone rang or that some one tried
the door Mr.. Clemens said he was
willing the court should dispose of the
case ON the theory that it was the duty
Of the clerk to keep his office open until
o'clock; that by his own admission
the clerk had failed to do this, and that
failing to do SO dt might be a case Of
forgetfulness). he had deprived the /
plaintiffs of a right and he could now
make it right by the court ordering him
to file papers now. If this was done
the court would not have to find that
McCabe had purposely locked the door /
to prevent the filing of the papers.
The court at the conclusion of the ar
guments announced that it would ad- /
jOurn until tomorrow morning at
O'clock If it should reach decision |
before that time the parties would be