Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1900-04-12

say-United States Supreme Court te
Re Invoked.
frankfort, Ky, April THE court
of appeals yesterday handed down its
decision in the gubernatorial contest
Al favor of Beckham, Judge Durell dis
scnting- The other two republican
Judges, Burnam and Guffy. handed
down a separate opinion, which diff
| fered in its reasons from the opinions
of the democratic judges. but agreed
with them in its conclusion. Judge
| HolSon, one Of the democratic judges,
| wrote the opinion of the majority con-
| firming the decision of Judge Field, of
| Louisville.
1t recites the work of the state can
vassing board and of the contest pro-
| ceedings in the legislature and all sub
sequent proceedings, and holds:
Can Not Question che Legislature.
I'VE have no more right tc supervise
the decision of the general assembly
in determining the result OF this cleo
ton than we have to supervise the ac-
ton of the governor in calling ,spe-
cial session of the Legislature or in
pardoning a criminal or the action OF
the legislature in contracting debts or
determining upon the election of its
members or determining other acts au-
thorized by the constitution.
No Conflict of Action.
There is no conflict between the
action of the state canvassing board
and that o. the legislature in these
cases. The state canvassing board was
without power to go behind the re-
turns. They were not authorized to
hear evidence and determine who was
in truth elected, but were required TO
give a certificate of election 10 those
who, on the face of the returns had re-
ceived the highest number of votes.
For the state board to have received
evidence to impeach the returns pc
fore them would have been for them in
effect to act as a board for contrasting
the election, and if they had Gone this
they would have usurped the power
vested in the general assembly by the
constitution. for by its express terms
only the general assembly can de-
tcrmine contested election for gov
crnor and lieutenant governor. But
the certificate of the state board of
canvassprs is no evidence as to who
was il: truth elected. Their certificate
entities the recipient to exercise the Of
fee until the regular constitutional au-
thority shall determine who is the de
jure officer. The rights of the de jure
Diiicer attached when he was elected,
although the result was unknown until
it was declared by the proper cOnsti-
tutionai authority. When it was So de
clared it was simply the ascertainment
of fact hitherto in doubt or unset
tied. The rights of the de factO officer
under his certificate from the canvass
ing board were provisional or tempo
rary until the determination Of the re-
suit of the election as provided by the
constitution, and upon that determina-
ton. if adverse to him. they ceased al
together
No Right Taken Away.
such Il determination of the result
IF the election by The proper tribunal
lid not take from him any pre-eNisting
right for, if not in fact elected, he
5ad only right to act until the result
IF the election could 5e determined.
Court WithoS.c Jurisdiction.
1--WE are, therefore. unable to- see
how this case can he distinguished
from any other legislative action taken
in Il matter over which the constitution
has given the legislature exclusive
jurisdiction, and we are, therefore, of
the opinion that the court is without
jurisdiction to go behind the record
made by the legislature under the con-
stitution. Such 4 record seems tC us
entitled to every presumption in its
favor which the records of this court.
kept under its supervision. would be
entitled to receive at the hands of the
legislature in n matter before il.
The score OF Partially.
1T is also argued that the contest
board was not fairly drawn by lot,
that certain members of the board
were liable to objection on the score
of partially, and that, therefore, this
board was not properly constituted. II
any of these objections were well
founded, the general assembly had full
power to take such action as was prop
CT in the premises. 1t does not appear
that any of the objections urged were
presented to the general assembly; but
if they were and it refused to make
I correction, it must be presumed that
it had sufficient reasons for its action.
Besides. the board was only a prelim-
mary agency to take evidence and re-
port the facts to the general assembly.
The assembly itself finally determined
the contest"
CONCUIIS IN THE DECISION.