The Topeka state journal., 1902-10-18
ISSUE AN APPEAL
CraddOck,s Attorneys Take Case
to The People.
Discuss the Anti-Fusi0n Law
and It's Effect.
ACTION OF THE COURT.
It Left the Fusionists Without
Recourse.
How the Voters Should Mark
Their Ballots.

Judge S. H. Allen and David Over
nyer. who were the attorneys for w. H
Craddoek in the case brought against
l'Secretary of State Clark to get Crao-
docks name on the state ticket in both
the Democratic and Peoples party, have
tried all the courts and have now ap-
pealed their case to the sovereign pow
er of Kansas, the voters. The appeal is
as follows:
To the People of the State of Kansas:
In 1901 for the first time since 1885,
the Republican party found itself in
possession of all branches of the state
government. Unfortunately that party,
which has said so much about free
ballot and a fair count. was dominated
by a constituencies gang of fxers- who
at once proceeded 10 perpetuate their
rule by passing a fraudulent election
law. This act was designed to prevent
the people from combining against
them. The leading features of it are;
that it allows political parties to act
only through nominating conventions
composed of members of but one po-
litical party; it prohibits candidates
from accepting the nominations of more
than one party, and prohibits parties
from uniting on a ticket under a COM
pound name indicating their union, and
requires candidate who has been NOM
mated by two parties to elect which
nomination he will accept and says that
he will then be deemed to have declined
the OLner ana requires IndI IN place OF
his name the words mo Nomination.
shall be printed in the ticket of the
party whose nomination he is deemed
to have declined. A complicated system
of marking, resigned to prevent inde-
pendent voting and especially to entrap
the voters of parties other than the Re-
publican and cause them to lose their
votes was devised. Circles are placed
at the head of each ticket in which the
strict partisan whose party has a full
ticket may vote for all the candidates
with a single cross, but to vote inde-
pendently and select candidates from all
the tickets and thereby defeat unworthy
nominees. the voter must keep out of
the circle and place a cross after the
name of each candidate he votes for,
on pain of losing his ballot entirely.
The Democratic voters of the state
through a delegate convention duly held,
nominated certain candidates for state
offices. A convention of the Peoples
party, regularly called and held, after
ward nominated the same candidates
and selected others to fill out the ticket,
who were also nominated by the Dem
ocratic convention for the same offices,
thus the Democratic party and the Peo-
pies party have each nominated a full
ticket of candidates of their choice.
Both conventions, believing this law to
be unconstitutional and a gross outrage
on the rights of the people, passed reSO-
lutions directing that the validity OF
the law be tested in the courts. and the
state committees of the two parties.
acting together authorized the under
signed to carry out that resolution. We
tt<ereupon brought suit in the supreme
court to compel the placing of both
| tickets on the official ballot. An alter
native writ of mandamus was allowed
and issued on September Is and the
cause was assigned for hearing on Oc-
tober and parties were notified to print
and file briefs by that day. which was
done. On October the cause was con-
tinued till the next day. When the case
was called for argument Mr.. Justice
Green stated that he deemed himself
disqualified to hear the case because be-
| ing a candidate he was interested in
the matter to be determined. Several
other justices made similar statements
ThereUpon the court withdrew and after
consultation it announced as its deci-
sion that a majority of the justices were
disqualified to hear the case by reason
| of their interest in the matter in dis
pute end for that reason no decision
could be had in that court. This deci-
sion clearly implies that the law gives
the justices who are candidates on the
Republican ticket an advantage they
they would not have if the law were de-
| clared unconstitutional, otherwise 1t
would be matter of Indifference to
| them These justices of the supreme
| court who are candidates declared that
they were disqualified to hear the case
because as they alleged they had an in
terest in the result of the deciison. That
result would be either that the obiec-
tionable parts of the law would stand or
/
a question in which the justices could
have any interest as candidates unless
the result of the election would be dill
ferent if these aarts of the law should
stand than if they should fall?
If the maintenance of the law upon
| the one hand or it's overthrow upon the
other would have no effect upon the
| election, then no candidate could have
any interest in the judicial determina-
tion of the question. If the result of the
election would be different in case the
law should stand from what it would
be if the law should not stand, then this
is proof beyond question that the law
will have the effect to favor some party
| or parties and injure some other party
or parties. In short. the decision upon
the law cannot be matter that can be
of interest to any candidate unless it
would help one side and hurt the other
side In claiming that they were in
terested in the decision upon the OBJ
jectionable parts of this law the JUS
tices therefore declared. in effect. that
they regarded those parts of the law
as political and liable to cause the cleo