The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-02-07
Judge Hazen Decides That the
Special Session
Was Legal in Every Particu-
lar.
TO SUPREME COURT.
Attorney General GODDARD Par
italy Explains
His Opinion - Says it Was
D SUPREME COURT.
His Opinion - Says it Was
Mainly Precautionary.

Judge Hazen of the district court to-
day handed down an opinion in Whlcn
he sustained the legality of the special
session of the legislature in every par
ticular. He annihilated every conten-
ton of the attorney general and quoted
numerous authorities upon which his
opinion was based.
Attorney General GODDARD says that
the case will be taken to the supreme
court at once and will probably be
heard in that tribunal this week. After
the decision was read he said: Il nave
been severely criticised for my opinion
by the newspapers when the 1act IS
that my only desire was to protect the
state treasurer from a possible mistake
for there was a question and did not
deem it safe to pay out money until
that questioned was settled l am IN
accord with much of Judge Hazen
opinion though there are portions Win
which 1 can not agree.
The reading of the opinion was listen
ed to by crowded court room Among
the listeners were Senators Lamp; eros
san and Farrelly. The opinion Is re-
garded by lawyers as one of the most
able ever delivered and it was received
with almost universal appreciation.
JUDGE HAZEN'S OPINION IN FULL.
Following is the opinion of Judge
Hazen in full:
On January II A. NJ. Harvey, the
Dlal0Il1.
alternative writ of mandamus against
the defendant, George z. Cole, aud!tor
of state, setting up in substance thaI
the state of Kansas was indebted to him
in the sum of $4,000 for services render
ed as lieutenant governor during the
last ten days of the special session or
the legislature of 1898; that he had pre-
scented a proper voucher to the defend
ant and had requested the issuance OF
a warrant upon the state treasurer for
said amount; that defendant failed and
refused to issue warrant; and asking
that defendant be required to issue Such
warrant, or show cause for his failure
so to do.
An alternative writ was issued, made
returnable January 80, and on that day
the defendant filed his return or answer
consisting of a general denial. After
wards, and on February 2, by permission
of the court, defendant filed an amend
ed return or answer setting up at length
his reasons for refusing to issue said
warrant. ThereupOn the plaintiff moved
to quash the amended return, upon the
ground that it constituted no legal rea-
son for defendants refusal to issue the
warrant demanded by plaintiff; and
the questions now under consideration
arise upon the motion to quash.
DEFENDANTS POSITION.
Tt is claimed on behalf of defendant
that he ought not to issue the warrant
demanded because the appropriation act
passed at the special session of the leg
islature of 1898, under which plaintiffs
voucher was presented, IS tAeSa1 anu
void for the following reasons:
That said special session of the 1egis-
lature at which the plaintiff performed
services as lieutenant governor was
convened by the governor of the state
without authority of law; that no extra
ordinary occasion existed to warrant
the converting of the legislature in spec
ial session; that the persons convened
in said special session were the mem
bers elected at the November election,
1896, and that prior to the converting
of said special session, and at the No
vember election, 1898, other representa-
tives had been elected; that the state
had been redistricted for legislative
purposes in an act passed at the regular
session Of the legislature of 1897 taking
effect June l, 1898, and that by such re-
apportionment of the state a large num-
Der of the members who assembled in