Semi=weekly graphic., 1896-06-17

 but gave his private opinion from the bench that the coinmittee erred in not counting Silver Lake and re- ferred cause to a court of law.
 ''The evidence presented before Robinson's court was an affidavit by the judges of the Silver Lake precinct stating that no election was held with which affidavit was filed duplicate poll book and tally sheets of the poll book and tally sheets so-called. claimed 10 be in- cluded with the returns sent to Arkansas City. This evidence was against the committee. No evidence was presented in it's behalf.
 "tFhe facts are that no poll book | reached the committee, speaking in true sense of the word, and no | tally sheets were included, in fact, however, this evidence was not pre- scented to the court, and 1 am of the i opinion that the court did what is considered it's official and private duty; at the same time the opinion is current in my county that the court should have simply rendered an opinion that it had no jurisdic- tion, in so far as it is concerned, and then let the matter drop without further comment from the court.
 s'It is question of public com ment. with some of the best legal talent of Desha and elsewhere, whether or not either court of equity or court of Inv has juris- dietion in this case, but that, how ever, is neither here nor there. In due course of time the case was brought before Judge Jno. M. Elliott with but one side represented as in the Chancery court, and Judge Elliott ruled that he had jurisdiction. He not only ruled that he had juris- dietion, but agreed that the com mittee erred, and issued an order commanding the committee to re- convene aud count the Silye Lake returns. or. ''if they SO desired, submit a motion to dissolve at the July term of the Desha Circuit Court.
 s.That was the straw that broke the eamel's back.
 "The committee expect ted the order. The great majority of the party felt that in as much as this was contest simply for party nomination, and not and office, the court overstepped it's bounds to interfere. Even Mr. Kiteley's friends, in many instances. felt that he committed q mistake W hen he appealed to the courts and that the courts were equally wrong in exercising their personal or official opinion from the bench.
 aThe reason given is that although the primary was held under the law legalizing primaries, this law fails to appoint q returning board or name it's duty, leaving the rules to govern primaries to be adopted by the party ritself, and, therefore, this matter be- ing wholly n party question, it by rights belonged to the party and to the people for settlement, and not to the courts.
 tThe question is asked. what righ has Judge Elliott. or any other Cir cult Judge, to name our party nomi- nees?
 But, in so far as I am personally ,.cerned, l do not believe Judge Elliott would stoop to bend his official duty in order to secure per sonal gain. l know him. He is too honorable for that. At the same time believe him wrong in his de- cision, but l further believe if he is convinced lie is wrong, Judge Elliott has the moral courage and manhood to acknowledge it.
 Motion to dissolve will be argued before Judge Elliott in this city either today or tomorrow.
 Notice has been served on Mir. Kiteley, says Mir. Trice, by the com mittee, thus the motion will he sub mitted now rather than delay until July.
 Judge B. F. Merritt, of this city, formerly Of Desha county, will rep resents the defendants.