The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1900-08-28
FRIENDS BATTLE.
Burton People Fall Out About
State Senator.
Develops That Mcknight and
Hessin Are For Burton.
CONTEST is BITTER.
Much Feeling Being Displayed
at Hearing.
The Madden-Randolph Case is
Submitted.
CONTEST is BITTER.


E. Hessin of Manhattan. to a State
Journal reporter today in the senate
chamber, where the Hessin- Mcknight
election contest is being heard by the
state election board.
This declaration by Mr.. Hessin places
an entirely new phase upon this con-
test. The friends of Senator Baker
have counted on Hessin as being one of
their supporters, and Mr. Baker has
been of the opinion that Hessin would
support him.
Owing to this belief by the Baker men
the contest between Hessin and Nc
Knight over the senatorial nomination
has been regarded as a Burton Baker
controversy, when, a matter Of fact,
it is a quarrel between supporters of
Mr.. Burton for senator.
1t was reported in Topeka yesterday
that Mr.. Hessin was a supporter of
Burton. When asked today for yeri-
fcation of the rumor Mr.. Hessin made
the foregoing Supplement
Attorney General GODDARD and State
Auditor Cole are hearing this contest.
George A Clark, who by law, is the
third member of the board, is not TAX
ing part in the hearing of this contest
Mr.. Clark lives in Geary county, which
is a part of the senatorial district in
volved, and as he was one of the man.
ayers of Mr.. Meningitis campaign, he
felt disqualified to sit in judgment over
the controversy.
The Introduction of evidence was
commenced yesterday afternoon and
concluded today. There was quite a
crowd of politicians from Wabaunsee,
Riley and Geary counties present, being
the partisans of the two candidates for
senator. Mr.. Hessin conducts a large
part of his own case, assisted by r. J.
Brock of Manhattan. w. S. Roark of
Junction City, represents Mr.. Nc
Knight.
The two men, Hessin and Roark. are
keen lawyers and the conduct of the
case by them leads to frequent clashes
which form the most interesting fea-
ture of the hearing. AS an example of
this, Roark was examining a witness
this forenoon when Hessin turned and
in an undertone addressed in CONVERSE
ton man who was sitting near him.
Roark stopped his questioning and
said:
..Shan we stop the evidence to
sprinkle and salt this hearing with
speeches2" Roark looked out over his
glasses at Hessin who retorted:
II was talking to this man here; not
to you. Go ahead with your exanina-
tion''
s.Gentlemen," said the attorney gem
eral who presides, '.let US proceed as
rapidly as possible"
Hessin and Roark watched each other
carefully and each lost no opportunity
to pay attention and accept chances to
The passages between the two men
were all the more amusing because they
did not manifest signs of anger, but
jabbed each other whenever the occa-
sion presented itself and went on with
the business in hand as though nothing
had occurred to mar the tranquility or
the humor of the court.
There were two conventions held at
Junction City. BY one Mcknight was
nominate Mr. Hessin receiving the
honor of the nomination in the other.
OF course, each man alleges that the
xuh
was illegal. To prove this each side
had a large number of witnesses, a
trunk full of affidavits and other evil
dence.
by both sides of the opposing forces, the
board is expected to arrive at conclu-
sion stating which was the regular con-
vention and which one of the men is the
legal nominee.
The statute creating this board pro-
vides that there is no appeal from the
decision of the board. Mr.. Hessin is re-
ported as saying that there is method
of appeal and that the case will go to the
supreme court if theboard decides against
him.
MADDEN CONTEST.
The board has under Amusement the
contest between Dennis Madden and
Judge w. A. Randolph for the Demo-
cratic nomination for judge OF the dis
trfct court of Lyon. Chase and Corey
counties. Randolph claims to be the
Democratic nominee; Madden disputes
this claim aud says he is the nominee OF
Randolph lays no claim to the Popu-
list nomination but is making hot
fight to retain mis- identity as the Demo-
cratic nominee. The question hinges up
on one point. which concerns the cleo
convention
When the Democratic convention of
Coffey county was in session resolution
%fr~4r r-Iz< ~
to name the delegates to the judicial
convention which had not been called.
Four delegates were named, but when
the apportiOnment was made by the jul
dicia1 central committee five delegates
were given to Coffey county. Thereupon
the chairman, acting under authority of
the convention which had adjourned. fill
ed the delegation by naming the fifth
man.
The county committee also named a
man for the fifth place on the delegation
claiming that the chairman of the con-
vention had no right to fill the place af-
ter the convention had adjourned. Aft
dayits from the man who made the mo-
ton and from numerous other persons
were filed to prove that the convention
authorized the chairman to name the
to the time either before or after adj
journment and that he was in fact en-
powered, at any time, present or future
to name the fifth delegate
This fifth delegate caused all the trou-
BILE too. The delegate named by the
chairman of the convention was exclud-
ed from the judicial convention and
thereafter the followers of Rondolph ad-
journed to another hall and nominated
him. The Randolph convention with the
contesting delegate appointed by the
chairman of the convention in Coffey
county had a majority. With the dele
gate appointed by the called county COM
mittee the convention of Democrats |
which nominated Madden had the ma
jority. From these incidents the trou-
BILE arose.
The politicians who have been watch