The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-10-05
Parker Hughes Case Submitted
to Highest Tribunal.
Lawyers Make Elaborate Argu-
ments on Both Sides.
ONLY ONE QUESTION.
Shall the Double Marked Bal
lots Be Counted.
Decision Is Not Expected Be-
fore Next Month.

The last engagement of the battle be-
tween Parker and Hughes for the
mayors chair OF this city was fought
in the supreme court Friday afternoon.
Points of law were the weapons with
an occasional broadside of shrapnel in
the shape of tabulations of votes.
counted, uncouuted, objected to, white,
black crossed. uncrossed. clipped. in
the box, out of the box, names, written
on, and yet confessedly on the part
of Hughes counsel so jumbled up that
they made no attempt to tabulate them
at all
Parker's counsel submitted their case
on the proposition that double-marked
ballots be counted on the intent of the
voter. Hughes counsel made only a
halfway resistance to this proposition,
insisting that many of these double
marked ballots had other invalidating
marks on them and that at least this
portion of them should be left out of
the court.
The irregularity shown up by the re-
count in the Second precinct of the
First ward, where 29 votes were short
OF the number voted and SO ballots
were found in a separate envelope to
account. for them, uncounted, was
given much Importance in the argu-
ment- They were responsible for the
sharpest tilt of the day between coun-
sci.
"Are ballots clipped and initials put
on before they are voted or after?'
inquired Justice Doster-
Clipping and marking of initials are
not in the present law, replied Attor-
ney ]. b. Lariner.
Clipping is in the law spoke up At
tDrney Doran. quickly
Yes, that's right admitted Judge
Carver; clipping is in the law. Bal
1rD{e eli tod
just as they go in the box
''These disputed ballots in the sec
Ond precinct of the First ward were
clipped. your honor" submitted Attor-
ney Doran-
Parlxer's attorneys made their stand
on the proposition that the court must
admit the IFS double marked ballots
and Parker would have majority. The
admission of part of the disputed % in
the second precinct of the First ward
would simply roll up that majority. In
his argument G. c. Clemens said:
IF the returns had been made as the
judges counted Parker would have had
8 majority. The gentlemen of counsel
may smile, but the commissioners re-
port shows that of the ballots counted
and strung On the night of election
Parker had 3 majority. If the returns
had been made according to the bal
lots counted and strung Parker would
have been the defendant in this suit in
stead of the plaintiff.
I'VE contend that the case depends
on the counting or not counting of the
176 double-marlzed ballots Parker can
not possibly win unless the double
marked ballots are credited to him.
And If Parker does get these ballots
Hughes can not possibly win.
while counsel contend that not one
of these double-marked ballots shall
be counted. it is remarkable that they
take the trouble to place additional OBJ
jectionS on over 30 of them. The de-
PENDANT also asks this court, if it finds
any other objections, to please count
them. What was the use of paying
commissioner so a day and then un-
load his work back upon the court
again. These extra objections are not
to be considered
This court has granted mandamus to
compel the printing of mans name
twice more on a ticket Can it be
legal to print a name twice and illegal
to mark it twice? We threw out
challenge in our brief that three courts
of last resort had ordered such ballots
counted and they have not made the
slightest answer to the challenge in
their brief
There are only. two questions to be
considered: First, the counting of ball
lots rejected by the judges of election;
second, distinguishing marks In the
Sc ballots found in the second precinct
of the First ward they must concede
that % were voted. They ask us to show
which were the 20 voted and which
were the seven not voted. 1t is evident
that In the hurly-burly of election con-
troversy arose over the double marks
and they were laid aside by the judges
for time What can be done? A court
is not permitted to give upa conundrum.
No court can retreat from any insur-
lnonRtab1e obstacle. Courts are not at
liberty to retreat from an apparently
1nsOlvable problem They cannot give
1t up Hence the resort to presump-
ton
I'VE offered a compromise We were
not compelled to- We offered them to
take seven off and then take seven from
those left for Parker and only give US
the rest. They refused. Now what? We
shall now do to them what Portia did to