The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1897-01-27
STATE PRINTER CASE.
EX-Chief Justice Martin Clear
~ and Fully Explains
The Scope and Intent of the
Hudson Decision
Made BY the Supreme Court a
Year Ago.

The following letter from ex-Chief
Justice David Martin to Hon. Albert H.
Horton, attorney for Major Hudson in
the state printer contest, will convince
all fair minded men that the wrangle
over Hudson's unexpired term ought to
stop. This opinion of Judge Martin
establishes beyond doubt that the court
intended Major Hudson to serve out
the full term for which he was elected.
Atchison, Kan, Jan. 25, 1897.
Hon. Albert H. Horton, Topeka, Kan:
My Dear Sir-Answering your es-
teemed favor of late date, I will say
that in my opinion the attorney general
has reached an erroneous conclusion in
the Snow-Hudson controversy, which
should be deemed closed by the judg-
mentS in the case reported in sc Kan,
S1S. The two cases were brought for
an adjudication of the title to the office
of state printer as between Snow and
Hudson and each resulted in a judg-
ment in favor of Hudson'S title. The
fundamental error of the attorney gen
eral seems to arise from deductions
based upon the divergent opinions of
the justices. and not upon the judg-
ments of the court, which alone are
binding. The attorney general says:
1T is true there is grave doubt in
legal circles whether under the specific
findings of fact and law in the Snow
Hudson case the judgment should not
have been for the plaintiff However,
that judgment was for the defendant,
and it's correctness we need not discuss.
But in the findings of fact the supreme
court holds, and very properly so, that
there was no election of state printer in
1885,
There is no such finding in the rec
ord, in the opinion, or in the syllabus
as that embraced in thelast sentence up
on which the attorney general grounds
his conclusion that the legislature of
1895, not having performed it's duty, it
rests upon this legislature to perform
that constitutional duty Justice AL
len, delivering the opinion of the court
in those cases, states cOnciSely and
clearly the variant views on each JUS
tice, but as to those no syllabus there
of is written" He also discusses What,
then, must be the judgment upon these
several views?" and concludes that
judgment will be entered in favor of the
defendants for costs in both cases.
There was no dissent from the opinion
that this was the proper judgment to be
entered upon the several views ex-
pressed. A motion for q reharing was
overruled, and some months thereaf ter
another motion was made in each case
for Judgment in favor of the plain tiff
Snow on the ground that upon the facts
stated in the opinion the judgment
should have gone for the plaintiff, not
for the defendants, and this motion
after due consideration was overruled.
Now it is an elementary pI-ir ciple in
the law of res adjudicata that it is the
judgment itself which binds and not
to it. Many judgments have been at
firmed in the higher courts although
every reason given for them by the
lower courts has been disapprOved; and
even though a judgment is entirely in
consistent with and unauthorized by
the findings of fact, yet it is valid and
fully binding upon the parties until set
aside in a regular proceeding for that
purpose.
In the controversy involving the right
to the office of state printer as between
Snow and Hudson, judgment was rem
iered for Hudson, motion for a re-
hearing was overruled, a subsequent
motion to enter judgment in favor of
Snow was overTuled, and this judgment
until set aside in a regular proceeding
is an adjudication binding upon the
parties, even il every reason urged in
its support was erroneous; and the leg
islature cannot lawfully disregard it,
for this would be a SubVersiou of the
judicial and legislative power
1 quite agree with the sentiment OF
the attorney general that II the de-
cision of any court, or & provision of the
constitution, or an enactment OF the leg
islature does not meet the approval of
the people, there is one way 10 correct
the wrong-if wrong exiStS-91ld that is
by following the method provided by
the organic law of the state, and the
provision of the statutes Any other
method is fraught with danger and is
contrary to the very spirit of our Lnsti-
tutions" Faithfully yours,
(Signed) DAVID MARTIN.