The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1902-10-14
DID NOT HAVE
JURISDICTION
Continued from Fifth Page.

the other. He believed that this action
could only be maintained by separating
the individuals.
Mr.. Overmeyer stated that it was the
duty Of the secretary Of the state 70 pro-
vide a seal for the district court and if
he failed provide thisseal il was a cause
Of action arising in Sedgwick county
and he believed that the making out Of
certificates Of candidates belonged in the
same class.
Mr. Goddard stated that is was the
custom of the county to send documents
through the mail and that this was the
proper way of sendingdocuments.
Court then adjourned until half past
one clock. while the court and attor-
neys looked up the matter of where the
secretary was supposed 10 perform all
of his duties.
When court convened in the afternoon
Judge Dale had been fully satisfied on
this point of law and he Immediately be
San the review of the arguments and
ended with the decision above given.
lie stated that TO prejudice would be
allowed either party If the applicans
wished 10 appeal the case they could take
exception 10 the ruins and on this they
could appeal The exception was taken
and the counsel for the applicants Tor the
writ asked time 20 confer about what
they would do in the matter. After q
few minutes consultation il was decided
that the case against George a. Clark
should be dismissed. but that the case
against John Chain should stand until
such tiLte as Iha Complaiuants wished
to take Il mp and cCurt ad iourHed.
After the adjournment % court Mr..
David Overmeyer made the following
statement 10 the Eagle:
When the supreme court refused 70
hear US we felt it our duty 10 try some
other tribunal we did rot come to
Judge Dale To get a partisan decision.
as has been stated. but we did not feel
that we were obliged 20 60 into some
other court fearing that we might set a
partisan decision against rs.
I'VE sought Judge Dale because we
could thi1k 4 no other court in the
state that would render as fair. impair
1ial and nom partisan decision as he
would We knew that 81 we set a par
tisau decision il would have 20 run the
gauntlet of the supreme court after cleo
tiou. We reasoned that the Judgment Of
Dale commanded the respect OF the bar
and courts over the state We have no
quarrel with him Tor deciding against
as. In fact we were never really certain
Of our grounds. or 81 least I was not.
but the DECORATE and Populist parties
requested Us 70 make an honest effort
% get q JAl-lial determination or THIS
question. and SO we had nothing else 10
DO after the supreme court had refused
10 act in the case
we have taken the necessary steps 10
appeal from Judge Daie's decision 10 the
supreme court. but we have not fully de-
cided what We viii do, II We 90 anything
mere We VIII probably know within
fvventv-four hours As 10 our right 10
have both tickets on the Official ballot
have no doubt. but that the letter OF
the law denies 70 the political parties the
freedom OF choice = candidates Is con-
cedcd by all That 10 law can do that
and be constitutional I think is also
conceded.
This committee has acted in 4 purely
legal capacity. and not III any spi-it a
partisan hate. We have discharged cur
duty. but have been unable 70 get
hearing before the courts Of this state
thus far