The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-10-06
SHALL IT STAND.
Anti Fusion Law Argued in
Supreme Court.
BOtn Sides Put Forth Their
Best Efforts.
IMPORTANT QUESTION.
Will Decide Future of POpulist
Party.
An Early Decision of Case Is
Expected.
Oral Arguments Will Be Made
on Tuesday.
IMPORTANT QUESTION

-
on Tuesday.
| The test case brought in the supreme
court by w. H. Craddock fusion can
didate for governor, to test the validity
OF the anti-fusion law. was set for hear
ing the first thing when the supreme
court opened its October sitting at $3.50
this morning, but owing to the absence
| of Chief Justice Doster the case will
not be argued until tomorrow morning.
Immediately after court opened this
morning Justice Johnston, who presided
/ in the absence of Chief Justice Doster,
announced that Judge Doster is on his
| way home from a trip out of the state.
| but had not yet arrived, and it is de-
sirous that the full court shall be pres
ent when the anti-fusion case is heard
He therefore set it for hearing tomor-
row morning at $3.50. Judge Doster has
| been in Texas for the past week. He is
expected home this afternoon
Assistant Attorney General West, who
represents the state, Immediately filed
motion to quash the case. The argu-
ment will come up on this motion. and
Judge West will thus have the affirm
ative
Mr.. Craddock is represented by Ed S.
| Waterbury, Allen & Allen, and David
! Overmyer. They completed their briefs
Saturday noon, and Judge West, on be-
/ half of the state, had his brief ready for
filing Saturday night Each of the at
lOII6y0 lOI MI. 0IduuOCk writes d DOI-
ton of his brief Judge Allen, in his
! portion, says in part:
THE questions presented in this case
are, as to the power of the legislature
under the constitution, and the theory of
our system of government to restrict
and control the people in their sovereign
capacity as voters in the selection of
| legislative, executive and judicial of
| fees in the manner and to the extent
attempted by CHAPTER III. of the laws
of 1901 The avowed purpose of the leg
islature in passing that law was to pre-
vent two or more political parties from
combining and exciting the full strength
| of their several party organizations for
the election of candidates agreed on by
them. The main questions now present
4 ed to the court are: first, is legislation
for such purposes authorized by the
constitution; second. the first question
being answered in the affirmative are
the provisions of the law under the con-
sideration constitutional?
In the exercise of their sovereign
| power the people have the un0uestioned
them as to them seems good. and of
uniting their various organizations in
any way they see fit without being
subject to dictation as to their methods
from any other group or party of vot-
erS. Nor can one political party, which
/ has succeeded in placing in the senate
and house OF representatives majority
of members of that party. lawfully in
litical action and combination of the
voters of other political parties In
making such cOmbina tiOns the people
are exercising their inherent, inalienable
political powers in the exercise of which
they are the soverigns and subject to
no control. We are speaking now not
of the regulations of elections but of the
combinations of the people for the pr
pose of accomplishing their will prior
to the election.
Section of the act under considera-
ton, commences with the following
sentence mo person shall accept
more than one nomina ton for the same
Office" This sentence expresses the
purpose of the legislature in the act
under consideration. Where does the
legislature derive its authority to place
this prohibition on the freedom of Sc
lection of candidates by political par
ties? Where can a line be found in the
constitution which, by any possible i'm
plicatiOn, confers any such authority
on the legislature? 1t will not be con-
tended for moment that at the cleo
ton the voters could be prohibited from
selecting candidates from among the
nominees of all the political parties to
suit themselves. Why may not a pOliti-
cal party which holds it's convention at
a later day than the conventions of
other parties select its candidates with
absolute freedom from among all the
persons eligible to the office, and how
can the legislature say that such con-
vention is prohibited from nominating
persons already nominated by another
convention? What is a nomination by
a convention2 1t is nothing more nor
+ less than a recommendation of a per-
son to the voters as a proper and fit
person to fill the office. Where does the
legislature get its authority to inter-
fere in any manner with such nomina-
tiOnS? The answer is perfectly plain
and admits of no doubt 1t has no such
, power. Suppose that instead of taking
the same candidates as those chosen
| l1x-% he Dor7o ff0 no ny 1n Nlase
{ party had nominated part of its can
, didates from among those already
l named by the Republican party and the
!. balance from the Democratic candi-
l dates. thus selecting, according to their
own judgment the best man from both
5 tickets. and by their nominations has
z recommended to the voters of the Peo-
pies party that they should vote for
: those candidates, would they not have
: a clear right to do so? In many states
!, opposing political parties are in the
habit of uniting on candidates for ju-
: dicial officers in order that the judges
e may not owe their election to Dartizan
+ influence. Is there any thing in morals
g in reason, and especially in the constitu-
l ton, authorizing the legislature to pro-
D hibiting them from doing So Yet the
t language quoted expressly denies this
right and states in a sentence the lead
g ing purpose of the whole act, for if the
t nominees may not accept more than one
e nomination the conventions may not
f lawfully combine in nominating the
e same individual.
: The provisions of the statute are no
q mere regulations, restricting the mum
h ber of times the name of a candidate
shall be printed on the official ballot
T but the legislature has said that be
L cause of his nomination by the Demo
cratic party the plaintiff shall be deeme,
Il to have declined the nomination by tn
v Peoples party, and that. although tina
! party cast the second highest numbel
: of votes at the last election and elected
! two governors of the state at two Drio