The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-01-11
Mr.. Parker Asks People to Not
Expect Too Much.
New Mayor Takes the Oath of
Office This Afternoon.

Albert Parker is the rightful mayor
of Topeka He received a majority of
the votes at the election.
The supreme court so decided in its
decision handed down today in the quo
warranto suit brought by Mr.. Parker
to Gust J. w. F. Hughes from the office
of mayor.
The opinion is written by Justice Cum
ningham. as it was assigned to him, but
dissent, while Justice Ellis concurs
specially, and Chief Justice Doster and
Justices Smith and Pollock concur but
file no opinions
The majority opinion of the court
covers seven typewriter pages. Justice
Cunningham also files dissenting
opinion of nine pages, in which Justices
Greene and Johnston concur. The opin-
ion filed by Justice Ellis in which ne
cOncurs specially with the opinion of
the court in Parker's favor, covers over
nine pages
A State Journal reporter answered
the telephone in the supreme court
rooms when Mayor Hughes called up to
find the result Immediately after the
decision was announced.
What do you think about it?" asked
the reporter.
Its all right, I guess" answered
Mayor Hughes. I'VE must abide by the
decision of the court"
The court decides that because the
same man is voted for twice on the
same ballot is no cause for throwing
the ballot out The counting of such
ballots as these, which was objected
TO by the supporters of Hughes, let's
Parker in by majority of II. Parker
receives 6.S14 votes and Hughes 6,297.
The syllabus and opinion as handed
down by the court is as follows:
Albert Parker VS.. J. w. F. Hughes.
Original proceedings in quo warranto.
Judgment for plaintiff.
SYLLABUS.
By the court. Cunningham J.
When ones name appears upon a
ballot more than once as a candidate
for the same office upon two or
more tickets on the same ballot, as
might have been the case under chapter
129 laws of 1897, and such name is
marked with a cross mark in the square
opposite the same two or more times
such double marked ballot is not there
by made void, but must be counted, the
excess of marks being mere surplusage
and not distinguish marks.
Johnston, Cunningham and Greene. =. .
dissenting.
2 No right to have a ballot counted
in candidates favor can spring out
of a criminal act. So where a voter has
marked a ballot for the purpose of dis
tinguishing the same, contrary to the
provisions of the statute making such
marking a criminal act, such ballot
cannot be counted, although the statute
does not in terms forbid it. This is true
even though the statute elsewhere spe-
cifically enumerateS classes of ballots
which shall not be counted, without in
cluding those with distinguishing
marks in the list.
The opinion of the court was deliver
ed by Cunningham J.:
At the spring election, 1901 in the
city of Topeka, plaintiff and defendant
were opposing candidates for the Office
of mayor. The plaintiff had received the
nomination from the Democratic party
and had also been nominated at A
meeting of citizens, so that his name
appeared twice upon the official ballot
The defendant was the regular nominee
of the Republican party and had been
declared elected by the proper board of
canvasSers. See, Parker VS. Hughes "a
Kan.
This action is an original one in quo
Warranto to determine whether plain
tiff or defendant was in fact elected to
the office of mayor at said election.
Both parties allege that they received
a majority of the votes cast thereat
and are entitled to hold said office
The court appointed James E I.ari-
mer, Esq, commissioner to hear evil
dence. count the ballots and ascertain
3he number AMI character of those dis