The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1896-10-21
SHALL THE
NAME GO ON?
The Supreme Court Listens to
the Argument
As to Placing Thomas E. Wat
sons Name
ON POPULIST TICKET.
VIII Announce Decision By 8
O'Clock A. III. Tomorrow.
Mandamus Case Against Charles
z. McCabe Also Heard.

As MgAdDG AASO 4AEdL4a
The supreme court convened this
morning and took up the election man
damus cases.
The first and more important one is
whether Thomas E. Watson's name as a
candidate for vice president shall ap-
pear on the official ballot at the head
OF the ticket of the Peoples Party
nominated at Abilene.
Assistant Attorney General GODDARD
and A. III Horton appeared for Mr..
Edwards. AIr- GODDARD read the an
swer OF Mr.. Ewards. which in sub
stance stated.
First. that he had gone ahead" and
certified the ticket to county clerks
without Watson's name appearing as
the candidate for vice president over
the Peoples Party electors. and his
reason for SO doing was that Abe Stein
berger of the middle OF the road ticket
had filed on Saturday a telegram from
Watson in the secretary's office which
requested that Watson's name be with
drawn and stated that papers with
drawing his name had been mailed
Second-That Watson had filed am ar
ddavit on Monday in which he request
ed that his name be Withdrawn.
Third-That the electors 0n the PeO-
pies Party ticket were the same as the
electors ON the Democratic ticket.
F0urth-That the electors We're all
Democrats and if elected would vote
for SeWau and not for Watson
Fifth-That Watson's name was
placed over the Peoples Party elect
ors for the purpose of misleading the
electors of the state.
Sixth-That Watson wanted to with
draw
Seventh-That the supreme court had
0 aI -ta -f al ID
state to certify WatsOn's name
Mr.. GODDARD stated TO the court that
ne was ready to proceed with tine case
if the other side would admit the state
ments OF the answer to be true He
said that there were some questions of
fact raised by the answer which Ed
wards was not ready to prove today;
that Edwards had only been served
with the writ on Monday and had only
had Tuesday TO prepare for the case.
and that it would be impossible for him
to prove that the signature on the a1f-
1aVit was that of Thomas E. Watson,
that it was impossible to get the proof
of such fact here in the time. Mr. Ed
wards had set UP that the electors on
the Peoples Party ticket were all Dem
ocratS and would. II elected. all vote
for SeWau for vice presi dent and not
for Watson and that they We're not
residents of Topeka and that it would
take some time to collect evidence to
prove this Mr.. GODDARD then asked the
court if the other side did not admit the
facts stated in answer. and Mr. Ed
wards should be called on to prove
them that the court postpone further
hearing Of the case till its next sitting
(Which would be the day after the cleo
tion)
Mr. GODDARD argued that the time of
the court ought not to be taken UP
with little matters. That this was q
little matter. as the electors appeared
on the ballot i'm another place and that
the voters could vote for them if they
.arf hi -.-7f
known to the people of the state. That
the court, if it should make an order
that the name of Watson so on the
ticket would be making a ridiculous
that the name Of Watson was on the
ticket for the purpose of catching votes
and that the electors if elected would
not vote for Watson but 1Or SeWaL
Chief Justice Martin then asked to
know how it could be proven what
certain men would do in the future.
Mr. GODDARD said such a fact could not
be definitely proven, but that it was
a matter of common knowledge in this
state and was q moral certainty, and
that the people of the state considered
WatsOn's name on the ticket was a
falsehood and that if the court should
order it put on it would lower the
standing of the court in the eyes of the
public.
Judge Horton added to the argument
Of MI GODDARD ia substance that if the
facts stated in the answer were ad-
mitted then they were ready to pro-
ceed- That in case the facts were not
admitted it would take some time to
get evidence. That the answer said
that the electors on the Peoples PARTY
ticket would not vote for Watson. thai
he understood that such was the case
with Morris Clggitt and some others
That Mr. Watson was q man of hfeh
standing and lofty character and that
he had come to the state Of Kansas and
investigated the situation and had
then made an affidavit that his name
was being used at the head of the tick
ct for the purpose of misleading the
voters of the state and that If this was
perpetrariug a deception on the voters
1T was finally agreed to take the
case up on motion of the plaintiff for
a peremptory writ. Mr.. Clemens
asking the court to grant him leave to
contest tne facts stated in the answer
in case the court should hold that +ba
plaintiff was not entitled to a neranlr-
tory writ on the facts set out in the an
swer.
Mr.. Clemens then opened the case
Watson's s Withdrawal. If it were s77ffi
cient to withdraw the name Of a. caraf
date had not been filed in time Tba+
it was not authenticated in due forr7S
as requested by statute; that Watson's
telegram to Stefnberger which was
filed on Saturday was not a withfr-7 vx-a1
and could not be used to get in a with
draWaI which was filed on Monday
that Watson was not q candidate for
any Office in this state and that his
party appeIatiOn. Mr.. Watson had ac-
cepted the nomination of the PEOPLES
party for vice president and they had
g. right to have his name on the ticket
as part of the party appenation. That
g Watson wanted to withdraw he